VABills Posted March 6, 2006 Posted March 6, 2006 There would already be 20 pages of Bush bad. But since it is retards president then it goes unnoticed and is acceptable to have protester incarcerated. http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/06/D8G64BA01.html
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted March 7, 2006 Posted March 7, 2006 There would already be 20 pages of Bush bad. But since it is retards president then it goes unnoticed and is acceptable to have protester incarcerated. http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/06/D8G64BA01.html 619490[/snapback] The difference is that when Bush makes a speech, any hecklers are barred beforehand.
pdh1 Posted March 7, 2006 Posted March 7, 2006 There would already be 20 pages of Bush bad. But since it is retards president then it goes unnoticed and is acceptable to have protester incarcerated. http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/06/D8G64BA01.html 619490[/snapback] I clicked a link on this page and found this: http://www.breitbart.com/images/2006/3/6/D...P80_preview.jpg Old Cindy has lost it for good it looks like.
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted March 7, 2006 Posted March 7, 2006 It is also funny how one of the most vocal anti-gun politicians (along with his wife) doesn't seem to mind being protected by gun toting secret service men. I guess you don't need gun rights when you can have the taxpayers pay for your own personal bodyguards for the rest of you life. If they really don't believe in the right to carry a concealed gun, do the right thing and refuse secret service protection. Hypocrisy runs deep in the Clinton household!
Mickey Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 It is also funny how one of the most vocal anti-gun politicians (along with his wife) doesn't seem to mind being protected by gun toting secret service men. I guess you don't need gun rights when you can have the taxpayers pay for your own personal bodyguards for the rest of you life. If they really don't believe in the right to carry a concealed gun, do the right thing and refuse secret service protection. Hypocrisy runs deep in the Clinton household! 620493[/snapback] Shucks, that makes sense. Clearly you have more to fear safety-wise than a former President and current Senator what with nutcases shooting at Presidents being such an unheard of event. I guess that if one favors any type of gun regulation, that means you should do the "right thing" and disarm the police, the FBI, the ATF and all branches of the military because otherwise you are a hypocrite. There are good reasons to view gun regulations with a very critical eye and certainly many reasons to have a dim view of the Clintons but this isn't one of them.
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 Shucks, that makes sense. Clearly you have more to fear safety-wise than a former President and current Senator what with nutcases shooting at Presidents being such an unheard of event. I guess that if one favors any type of gun regulation, that means you should do the "right thing" and disarm the police, the FBI, the ATF and all branches of the military because otherwise you are a hypocrite. There are good reasons to view gun regulations with a very critical eye and certainly many reasons to have a dim view of the Clintons but this isn't one of them. 620923[/snapback] Exactly how many ex-presidents have been shot? I really don't remember any stories on that. Where in my post do I say anything about disarming the police? If the government can provide me with my own personal police force at all times than I will glady concede that I do not need to be able to protect myself. Typical liberal response! Last time I checked the fromer president was a citizen just like you and me. The constitutional right to bear arms (or have somebody braver than you do it for you) applies to all of us, not just those who feel they may be more important than the rest of us slobs. By the way, it's not "gun regulation" when you support banning handgun ownership. We have plenty of "gun regulation" in NY already. The people who commit crimes do not care if they are using an illegal gun. By your logic, if we make more lengthy and confusing regulations banning murder we could cut down on the murder rate in the U.S. Cities with very strict gun restrictions consistantly have higher crime rates than cities without overbearing gun restrictions. Criminals flock to place where good people can't fight back.
RkFast Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 That last post has got to go into the TSW Hall of Fame or something.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 That last post has got to go into the TSW Hall of Fame or something. 621070[/snapback] Hall of Stupidity, and I support ownership of guns! Don't like the NRA political teeth knashing on the subject, and under the Consitution states have the right to regulate ownership, heck they and the feds already do, it is a crime for felons to own guns. But people should still be able to own guns and follow the rules. This poster takes it to another level., Where is Crap Throwing Monkey with an appropriate response when you need one. P.S. Former President's under the law are required to have a secret servies security detachment, get over it. Unless this guy is a convicted felon and should be investigated by big government.
VABills Posted March 8, 2006 Author Posted March 8, 2006 Hall of Stupidity, and I support ownership of guns! Don't like the NRA political teeth knashing on the subject, and under the Consitution states have the right to regulate ownership, heck they and the feds already do, it is a crime for felons to own guns. But people should still be able to own guns and follow the rules. This poster takes it to another level., Where is Crap Throwing Monkey with an appropriate response when you need one. P.S. Former President's under the law are required to have a secret servies security detachment, get over it. Unless this guy is a convicted felon and should be investigated by big government. 621082[/snapback] This post was not about gun ownership, but rrather that these two protesters were arrested for protesting Clinton. My point, which you guys all missed, is if it was Bush it would have been front page news that their right to freedom of speech was taken away. but since it was Clinton it's okay.
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 Hall of Stupidity, and I support ownership of guns! Don't like the NRA political teeth knashing on the subject, and under the Consitution states have the right to regulate ownership, heck they and the feds already do, it is a crime for felons to own guns. But people should still be able to own guns and follow the rules. This poster takes it to another level., Where is Crap Throwing Monkey with an appropriate response when you need one. P.S. Former President's under the law are required to have a secret servies security detachment, get over it. Unless this guy is a convicted felon and should be investigated by big government. 621082[/snapback] Former presidents are not required by law to have secret service protection. Nixon declined it after he left office due to the incredible cost to the taxpayers. But don't let facts get in the way of your point! Before calling someone stupid you may want to check your facts. Please point out the part of the constitution that gives the States the right to regulate gun ownership. I'm not debating if felons should own guns, obviously they should not and there are necesary regulations. We don't enforce the ones we have.
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 This post was not about gun ownership, but rrather that these two protesters were arrested for protesting Clinton. My point, which you guys all missed, is if it was Bush it would have been front page news that their right to freedom of speech was taken away. but since it was Clinton it's okay. 621083[/snapback] Sorry, I got way off your point. I do agree with you though.
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 That last post has got to go into the TSW Hall of Fame or something. 621070[/snapback] Thanks for the nomination. Not sure if you are making fun of me or complimenting me, but either way it sounds as though you were entertained!
KD in CA Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 Exactly how many ex-presidents have been shot? I really don't remember any stories on that. I'm sorry, are you actually suggesting that ex-Presidents should not be afforded protection from the Secret Service if they weren't strong advocates of gun ownership rights? That is as stupid as the libtards saying that people who supported the war should be drafted to fight it.
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 I'm sorry, are you actually suggesting that ex-Presidents should not be afforded protection from the Secret Service if they weren't strong advocates of gun ownership rights? That is as stupid as the libtards saying that people who supported the war should be drafted to fight it. 621134[/snapback] Actually what I said was that it is extremely hypocritical for an anti-gun advocate to accept armed protection at all times. It would be the similiar to a conservative pro lifer getting an abortion after proposing legislation to outlaw it. There is also a difference between "not being strong advocates of gun ownership rights" and being the face of the anti-gun lobby.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 Former presidents are not required by law to have secret service protection. Nixon declined it after he left office due to the incredible cost to the taxpayers. But don't let facts get in the way of your point! Before calling someone stupid you may want to check your facts. Please point out the part of the constitution that gives the States the right to regulate gun ownership. I'm not debating if felons should own guns, obviously they should not and there are necesary regulations. We don't enforce the ones we have. 621117[/snapback] Sorry, is it optional? I still want to check that, thought it was made mandatory...because of all the looney's making threats against all of them. Second Amendment A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The "well reglulated" part allowing for the government intrusion.
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 Sorry, is it optional? I still want to check that, thought it was made mandatory...because of all the looney's making threats against all of them. Second Amendment A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The "well reglulated" part allowing for the government intrusion. 621175[/snapback] The "well regulated militia" is reffering to the military. We have the military because it is "necessary to the security of a free state" . When the Constitution was written the country had just fought off another militia (Britian) who was trying to disarm the citizens to prevent revolt. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed in case we ever need to rebel against an unjust government's militia even if it is our own. The founders knew that there was always the possibility for Government to become too powerfull. If you pay attention to the commas you can see that the well regulated "militia" part is seperate from the "people" part.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 The "well regulated militia" is reffering to the military. We have the military because it is "necessary to the security of a free state" . When the Constitution was written the country had just fought off another militia (Britian) who was trying to disarm the citizens to prevent revolt. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed in case we ever need to rebel against an unjust government's militia even if it is our own. The founders knew that there was always the possibility for Government to become too powerfull. 621197[/snapback] The British Army was not a militia in the Revolutionary War. Plus, by your argument, if the 2nd refers specifically to the military, it therefore is against private gun ownership. If you pay attention to the commas you can see that the well regulated "militia" part is seperate from the "people" part. When you start arguing over the proper interpretation of commas, you're probably at the point where it's time to step back and reconsider the direction your argument is going in.
RuntheDamnBall Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 There would already be 20 pages of Bush bad. But since it is retards president then it goes unnoticed and is acceptable to have protester incarcerated. http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/06/D8G64BA01.html 619490[/snapback] Question, where do you see that the gentlemen in question were "arrested" or "incarcerated"? They were questioned and released, and asked to leave the speech. I guess your standards of free speech and what qualifies as an arrest are different for "Code Pinkos."
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 The British Army was not a militia in the Revolutionary War. Plus, by your argument, if the 2nd refers specifically to the military, it therefore is against private gun ownership. When you start arguing over the proper interpretation of commas, you're probably at the point where it's time to step back and reconsider the direction your argument is going in. 621211[/snapback] Then how else does the government justify regulating gun ownership, even for felons?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 Then how else does the government justify regulating gun ownership, even for felons? 621218[/snapback] Same way they justify everything: "it's in the public interest". Like their raises a few years back.
Recommended Posts