Welcome To The Wild West??? by deepgirl187

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"I honestly don't know what this means for this country. On one hand, I don't want to see guns in the hands of kids, criminals, or drunken idiots. On the other hand, I can see why some people feel the need to own guns in their homes. Any other thoughts?"
-------------------------------------------------

Ever been to D.C.? Its a nightmare. The central area (read: tourist/rich/government) is the only semi-safe place for 15 miles.

For most of the rest of D.C. its a war zone.

The SE region is one of the most dangerous places in the country.

Most of the outlying areas, stretching well into Maryland, are ghettos full of the worst kind of trash.

The gun-ban just served to show that only the criminals had the guns. And, the criminals, the animals, used them.

Far too many innocents paid the price for the illegal enforcement of the unconstitutional law against the human right to defend oneself.

Maybe, now, those in the ghettos who are good, hardworking folks, (read: worth saving) will finally have the means to take back the streets from the garbage/animals that have held sway there for far too long.

One can only hope.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 7:19 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Maybe, now, those in the ghettos who are good, hardworking folks, (read: worth saving) will finally have the means to take back the streets from the garbage/animals that have held sway there for far too long.

Or, more likely, they'll think they have the tools to do so, and get shot in the attempt.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 7:39 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Well, better to die on your feet fighting than cringing on your knees.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 8:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"I honestly don't know what this means for this country. On one hand, I don't want to see guns in the hands of kids, criminals, or drunken idiots. On the other hand, I can see why some people feel the need to own guns in their homes. Any other thoughts?"
-------------------------------------------------

Ever been to D.C.? Its a nightmare. The central area (read: tourist/rich/government) is the only semi-safe place for 15 miles.

For most of the rest of D.C. its a war zone.

The SE region is one of the most dangerous places in the country.

Most of the outlying areas, stretching well into Maryland, are ghettos full of the worst kind of trash.

The gun-ban just served to show that only the criminals had the guns. And, the criminals, the animals, used them.

Far too many innocents paid the price for the illegal enforcement of the unconstitutional law against the human right to defend oneself.

Darn tootin'!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:07 AM

DEEPGIRL187

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Ever been to D.C.? Its a nightmare. The central area (read: tourist/rich/government) is the only semi-safe place for 15 miles.

For most of the rest of D.C. its a war zone.

The SE region is one of the most dangerous places in the country.

Most of the outlying areas, stretching well into Maryland, are ghettos full of the worst kind of trash.

The gun-ban just served to show that only the criminals had the guns. And, the criminals, the animals, used them.

Far too many innocents paid the price for the illegal enforcement of the unconstitutional law against the human right to defend oneself.

Maybe, now, those in the ghettos who are good, hardworking folks, (read: worth saving) will finally have the means to take back the streets from the garbage/animals that have held sway there for far too long.

One can only hope.

I'm not necessarily against this ruling, I just don't know if it's a good thing either. People can do some really dumb-ass stuff where firearms are involved, especially when they don't have the training to use them properly. But I also think people should have the right to protect themselves and their families, especially in areas like the one you're describing. I'm originally from the inner city myself, so I'm more than familiar with rough neighborhoods. There was a drive-by a few years ago right in front of my grandparents house.

I guess I wonder if this ruling is the best way to go about things. Or if there even is a correct way to deal with the issue of gun ownership.

**************************************************

"This is my timey-wimey detector. It goes ding when there's stuff. Also, it can boil an egg at 30 paces, whether you want it to or not, actually, so I've learned to stay away from hens. It's not pretty when they blow."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:20 AM

CHRISISALL

In a country where creeps will have a gun if they so desire, letting citizens have that ability legally only makes sense.
The only other answer is to make it a capital offense to commit a crime with a firearm, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.
So...cool.

P90 Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:27 AM

{In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."}

I guess he could have said the same thing about free speech & other Bill of Rights Amendments, but of course never would.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:42 AM

ARCLIGHT

Charlton Heston is smiling.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:45 AM

CHRISISALL

If you take guns from humans, only apes will have guns.

Damn dirty Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:59 AM

FIVVER

Yeah Jong, not the most intelligent of quotes. The second amendment is not about shooting Bambi or the guy climbing in through your window. Those are just icing on the cake. It's about the people being able to protect themselves from an overbearing government. Here's what Framer James Madison had to say about the right to bear arms in Federalist Paper 46.

Quote:
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 11:10 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

It means that the 2nd Amendment finally means what it was suppose to mean. What's so hard to understand ?

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 12:10 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Making it a crime to have a gun does not reduce crime - it simply turns well-intentioned, law-abiding gun owners into criminals. It doesn't stop someone who was already a criminal from getting or using a gun simply because it's against the law; burglary, carjacking, dealing drugs, those are all against the law, and that hasn't stopped them. Neither have tougher sentences for gun crimes stopped them from happening. Letting ordinary law-abiding citizens defend themselves isn't any guarantee that things will get better, but it's a start.

In my neighborhood, the police response time is a fucking joke. There are cops everywhere; they just don't come when you call 911. I've had drive-bys, I had a guy shot in the fucking head because some crack-smoker wanted his watch - and it was a fucking $20 TIMEX, not even a nice watch! I've called the cops for things like drive-by shootings, and they were good enough to show up THREE HOURS LATER. When my car was stolen, they showed up the next day.

Sad to say, in some cities, and in some neighborhoods of those cities, the cops are worse than useless. I say "worse than" because there is the myth that they'll come running when you call, so you have this fantasy that you're protected. You're not, unless you can protect yourself. The standard line around here is, "We only call 911 after the shit goes down, to come and clean up the mess."

Sad but true.

So I'm a gun owner. Does that mean I'm looking for an excuse to shoot someone? Hell to tha NO! I'm hoping I never, ever have to - but I'm trained just in case. Had I been aware that someone was stealing my car, I wouldn't have shot them - I'd have put a 7.62x39mm full metal jacketed bullet right into my own engine block. That means the car isn't going anywhere; I built that engine, and I've got spares, so that's the least harmful way to finish that situation. After that, if the thieves were in their own car, I'd have pumped a couple rounds into THEIR engine block. Now they're not going anywhere in a hurry. At that point, I'd have held them until the cops showed up, and I'd have probably faced a misdemeanor weapons charge for discharging a firearm inside city limits - but that beats a manslaughter charge and it's cheaper than buying a new car. As it was, I never got the chance; I didn't hear a thing -slept right through it. So did all three of my dogs. Might be time to get some new dogs. :)

Next, if you're going to own a gun, GET TRAINED IN HOW TO USE IT! Here's a real simple starting point that my dad taught me when I was six, and it's stayed with me for life:

In your entire life, no one is ever going to hand you an unloaded gun. Until you yourself remove the magazine, cycle the action and visually verify that it's unloaded for yourself, and then check it again, EVERY GUN IS LOADED AND LETHAL.

How many times have we seen it in the news? "Man shoots self while cleaning his gun." Often times, these are long-time gun owners who just didn't check and re-check.

Rule number two: never point a gun at someone unless you're willing to shoot them and watch them die. Don't fuck around; these are not toys. If someone points a handgun at me, one of two things is going to happen: (a) He's going to shoot me, or (b) I'm going to step into him, grab the gun and twist it toward his thumb, HARD, and disarm him or cause him to shoot himself in the gut. Me backing away isn't an option, because now he's still got a gun and I'm too far away to make a useful counterattack.

DC would do well to stop trying to criminalize every law-abiding gun owner and start trying to open up the ranges and get these people properly trained, and even to license them to carry concealed handguns. Simply trying to sweep it all under the rug hasn't worked at all. And if a criminal isn't sure that you're NOT armed and prepared to defend yourself, it makes him less likely to target you. If there's a good chance that you ARE armed, it makes it less likely still. But if he can be assured that you are unarmed, you are an inviting target indeed.

This isn't the "wild west" - this is just the acknowledgment that *I* alone am the best protector of me and mine. Might I get shot trying to defend myself? Possibly. But I might get shot just as dead trying to cooperate with my attacker. As Patrick Swayze said, "Be nice - until it's time to not be nice."

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 12:52 PM

All it means is that the benchwarmers at the supreme court are perhaps a bit more semi-literate than your average politician and can read the abundantly clear text of the second amendment without drooling and gibbering, which sets them about a half-step above the politicians that seem to think unarmed-victim zones actually reduce crime in spite of the hard cold fact that every single one has become a hellzone, and tends to spawn mass shootings by folks who prefer unarmed targets.

All it means is that for fucking once, those pissants up on the hill admitted we have the right to defend ourselves and just watch the DC cops go berserk now, since, one a person does begin to defend themself, they start asking QUESTIONS... like... what, exactly, do we need those bully-parasite scum in blue lording over us FOR anyway ?

The police unions are likely shitting bricks right now, cause more guns = less crime, and less crime means less NEED for their nasty little mafia, and I'll not shed a bitter tear when the budget axe comes down and seperates a few of em from the feeding trough of our tax dollar, that's for sure.

And as for those wild west claims of the cowardly chicken littles who have their own agenda and reasons for wanting everyone ELSE disarmed (since so MANY of them have been caught carrying illegally, yes ?) that's right on schedule, but you know....

Kennesaw Georgia (look it up) doesn't have that problem, and in fact, doesn't have a CRIME problem any fekkin more neither, do the math with the sister city that DID forment a gun ban (resulting in a near instantaneous crime increase of over 15%..) and certain realities become abundantly clear.

Michigan was also predicted to become a wild west bloodbath when WE went right-to-carry, but again, no such thing occured and crime dropped like a ROCK, I was living right next to Flint, MI at the time and it was a damned horrific place, and within a couple months the whole atmosphere the place changed, apparently the criminal element sought greener pastures, many of em over in Wisconsin where it's still a free feeding zone of easy victims.

All that aside however....

A gun is like a spare tire, a fire extinguisher, the idea is to never NEED it, but should you need it, you need it NOW, not five miles away in the holster of some colors-wearing badge-bearing goon parked at the local coffeehouse trying to get up under the skirt of the night waitress.

And like any powerful tool, it can be dangerous to YOU if you don't know how to use and maintain it properly, it's not a magic wand like on TV.

I don't favor the idea of Gov involvement in licensing and training because it's a historically proven fact that we cannot trust them to not abuse it, the model I have proposed is that the manufacturers, in exchange for immunity from this ridiculous flood of lawsuits, simply require a standardised training and safety course to be passed as a condition of sale, and possibly a discount for a more advanced and intensive course over a basic one as it further reduces liability and safety/legal issues.

Speaking of....

You DO realize that popping a cap on someone, even in the most clear cut case of self-defense generally tends to make the cops and local courts go berserk on you, resulting in a minimum of $30,000.00 USD worth of legal fees on average and likely a civil suit by the perps next of kin on top of that, right ?

Worse and worse, something no one ever seems to think about is who has to clean up the mess (and that'll be YOU, or your family), which entails not only a substantial degree of pyschological trauma, but also certain biohazard risks in addition - I've cleaned up after a shooting (not mine) before and it's pretty damned awful.

And lets not even go there about having to rip out panelling and drywall to replace an electrical conduit struck by a stray round....

You do NOT wanna have to shoot someone if you can help it, but if it's them or you...

Make sure it's YOU - stay alive till help arrives, don't expect a prompt response to that 911 call, that's misplaced faith if there ever was such a thing.

Reccommended site regarding these issues.
http://www.corneredcat.com/
Excellent site for all beginners, and geared specifically towards women and these issues.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 1:40 PM

Quote:

You DO realize that popping a cap on someone, even in the most clear cut case of self-defense generally tends to make the cops and local courts go berserk on you, resulting in a minimum of $30,000.00 USD worth of legal fees on average and likely a civil suit by the perps next of kin on top of that, right ?

Which brings to mind a point brought up today on Sirius' Left-Wing talk radio station: One statistic you'll NEVER hear about is the number of crimes prevented simply because the victim was armed and pulled his or her gun, causing the perp to simply run away to find someone a little more vulnerable.

And for those of you who don't know exactly what the 2nd Amendment says, I'll post it here, in its entirety:

Quote:
Amendment II

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.

That's it. That's the entire Second Amendment. A lot of people point to the "well-regulated militia" part of it as meaning those serving in the armed forces, the reserves, or other "militia" units that are organized and have gatherings and specific training, but historically (based on the state constitutions of the time of the framing of the Constitution), "militia" was meant to encompass every able-bodied citizen who COULD serve in time of dire need, not those who actually DID serve, or were members of any organized military or para-military unit. As such, the "militia" of the Founding Fathers was, simply, the entire citizenry of the nation. That's you and me. This was written SPECIFICALLY to ensure that no outside invader (like the British of the time) NOR any oppressive government WITHIN our borders could gain a foothold, because we the people are the final guardians of our own liberty.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 1:48 PM

Quote:

The police unions are likely shitting bricks right now, cause more guns = less crime, and less crime means less NEED for their nasty little mafia, and I'll not shed a bitter tear when the budget axe comes down and seperates a few of em from the feeding trough of our tax dollar, that's for sure.

Sadly, I don't think that's how it will go - but that's the way it SHOULD be. If violent crime goes down, the cops will be only too happy to start writing more traffic tickets (even though red-light cameras and photo-radar SHOULD mean those same cops are even less necessary for even that duty). Cops ALWAYS want more cops on the streets. Hell, now they'll ask for more officers just to make sure the people they stop and search for guns actually have the legal right to have those guns. And of course, those guns you legally have the right to have will naturally be confiscated. Oh, you'll be able to get them back, after you shell out money, jump through the legal hoops, and PROVE beyond a doubt that you've done nothing illegal. Fates forbid the cops should ever have to prove that you DON'T have the right to own a gun before they confiscate it.

Of course, I could be a little jaded on the issue of the police. From where I sit, they're pretty much only there to get in a person's way...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 1:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by fivver:
Yeah Jong, not the most intelligent of quotes. The second amendment is not about shooting Bambi or the guy climbing in through your window. Those are just icing on the cake. It's about the people being able to protect themselves from an overbearing government. Here's what Framer James Madison had to say about the right to bear arms in Federalist Paper 46.

Quote:
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

It was Madison, as you quoted, but also mainly Thomas Jefferson who was the architect of the Bill of Rights. He wanted less Federal Govt. and more individual and state's rights...the exact opposite of today's modern Democrats who want the Govt to control every aspect of your life, including a nanny-state that re-distributes hard-working & entrepeneurial wealth to the idle & un-deserving under-acheivers of our society. The writings of the other Framers & Founding Fathers such as Adams, Washington, Franklin, Paine, Henry, et al clearly demonstrate in mountains of documents and letters that their intention was for an individual's rights to gun ownership...and this has been widely interpreted by Constitutional scholars for 200 years....only until the 4 libtards on the Supreme Court yesterday stood fast with their un-constitutional "feelings" and voted against our Constitutional rights...shame on them! I would like to applaud Justice Kennedy...loudly! As the only moderate on the court, I think he's gotten it right twice this week...first by casting the deciding vote against the death penalty for child rapists, and then his vote to uphold the 2nd Amendment. **Note on the child rapist thing....yeah, no death penalty, but yes to manadatory prison sentences of 20 to life at hard labor.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 3:57 AM

DEEPGIRL187

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Michigan was also predicted to become a wild west bloodbath when WE went right-to-carry, but again, no such thing occured and crime dropped like a ROCK, I was living right next to Flint, MI at the time and it was a damned horrific place, and within a couple months the whole atmosphere the place changed, apparently the criminal element sought greener pastures, many of em over in Wisconsin where it's still a free feeding zone of easy victims.

Around what time were you living in Flint, Frem? That drive-by I mentioned happened about eight years ago, and a few years after that (2003 or 2004), the amount of crime started to spike again. Haven't heard anything recently, but I live on the other side of the now.

**************************************************

"This is my timey-wimey detector. It goes ding when there's stuff. Also, it can boil an egg at 30 paces, whether you want it to or not, actually, so I've learned to stay away from hens. It's not pretty when they blow."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 4:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Amendment II

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.

That's it. That's the entire Second Amendment. A lot of people point to the "well-regulated militia" part of it as meaning those serving in the armed forces, the reserves, or other "militia" units that are organized and have gatherings and specific training, but historically (based on the state constitutions of the time of the framing of the Constitution), "militia" was meant to encompass every able-bodied citizen who COULD serve in time of dire need, not those who actually DID serve, or were members of any organized military or para-military unit. As such, the "militia" of the Founding Fathers was, simply, the entire citizenry of the nation. That's you and me. This was written SPECIFICALLY to ensure that no outside invader (like the British of the time) NOR any oppressive government WITHIN our borders could gain a foothold, because we the people are the final guardians of our own liberty.

Actually the term militia was far more interchangeable with military than it is now. Also, the term 'to bear arms', was often used to refer to ones service in the military. Looking at the language as it is, in the context of it's time, the interpretation that it allows states to operate their own militia (that is citizen army, but not private weapon ownership by citizens in the modern theme) that is not under the control of the Federal government, is equally supported.

Truth is you can't be sure, the founding fathers may have been for more stringent weapon protection in the modern context, they may not. That's the problem, the constitution was written for the 1700's, not the 21st century.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 5:26 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Yes Citizen, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were written in the 1700's. However, whether its the 1700's or the 2000's or the 3000's, basic human rights do not change.

I refer here, specifically of course, to the right to defend oneself. To procure and maintain the tools necessary to keep one safe and, if need be, to fight back against tyranny both foreign AND domestic.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 5:41 AM

PIRATECAT

Kwicko, can you say thread hog. Boy, its not always about you. Its about the 2nd amendment. A guaranteed right. Its not about your ghetto life. You live there because the hookers are cheap. Get off the fat crack. Now DC can join the rest of the Union. You have a right to protect yourself, family, and property. Idiots always say that the armed citizen is dangerous. But cops are your saviors. Criminals are better with arms than veterans. Cops are the criminals. Shooten engine blocks what a fag.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 6:55 AM

(Yes, it's a bit ranty and wandering, tired from mowing the lawn and bombed on allergy meds...pollen allergies suuuuuuuuuuuck!)

MI originally adopted Right-to-Carry in 2001, but it wasn't till about two-three years later that certain little shell games were finally ended by the state legislature and you could actually GET a CCW permit, the police installed a revolving door setup of catch-22 crap to drive folk off.

FYI, you CAN legally open-carry in MI, but that pissant Cox actively discourages it with the excuse that you might cause a panic - are people such cowards that the mere SIGHT of a freakin TOOL sends them screaming?

God forbid I walk across my own yard with a hammer or a rake then....
(insert about four minutes of profanity here)

Between 2004-2005 I was driving a cab in that area, and literally watched as crime fell off like a rock, you really get to know an area and it's people quite intimately from behind the wheel of a cab, and since I do associate and make friends in the "lower elements" of society* and many of them headed for greener pastures, specifically wisconsin, as a better and "safer" (how ironic, eh?) place to practice their 'trades'.

In fact the exodus really affected the area, for a while there it was actually starting to look like a ghost town, and I would have to say overall the folks who moved into that vaccum were at least marginally better folk, although given the continual poverty and resultant desperation of the average resident, not by all that bloody much, alas.

One substantially contributing factor to recent upswings in crime were the lack of any kind of trust and communication between the police and communities, especially in detroit, compounded in recent years with a truly significant amount of criminal activity on behalf of the DPD themself - remember, we STILL have that cursed federal task force sitting on top of them, and as a result they've been sitting around and bitching that they "can't do their job" if they're held to even the simplest standards of basic human decency, so they've prettymuch been sitting it out and waiting for the feddies to give up while the rest of us get left swinging in the breeze, one reason WHY I severely reccommend you protect yourself anywhere in Detroit and the local burbs, cause help will be long in coming, if at all.

As I recall, without being specific in either case, you live quite a bit further west of detroit than I do, and in any area that is comparatively safe, to a degree that actually weirds me the hell out being originally a native of Baltimore... I'd never SEEN an urban environ without the 'atmosphere' of fear, dread and violence before, I was like, what the hell, did they spike the local water supply with valium or what ?! none of these people look dangerous or frightened, it's... unnatural!

But I got used to it, especially after moving to a podunk little town about a mile wide in which three vandalisms in a month is considered a "crime wave"
*eyeroll*

But old habits and reflexes do die hard, and these days even most of the criminal element in detroit itself are just pathetic and incompetent amateurs in comparison to what I am used to, truthfully I feel MORE threatened by the DPD given their conduct over the past three years.

All the more reason to protect self (mostly by avoiding trouble in the first place) and not get them involved if at all possible - imagine being robbed, calling the cops and THEN getting shaken down, extorted, and then arrested by them... it's common enough that folks on the east side simply WILL not call em unless there's bodies to be picked up, if even then.

We're seeing an upswing now only because of the truly grevious economic situation, and most of that is what I call crimes of desperation more than intentional lifestyle conduct, it's no less dangerous for all that, but the really dangerous ones, that consider it a lifestyle and a living, they've long since flown the coop to somewhere they can be SURE their victims are unarmed and defenseless, and good fekkin riddance to em.

-Frem

* One reason no one robs me, is that I am friends and associates with many of the folk that would ponder doing so, and should any of em contemplate it, the rest of em would stomp their ass.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 7:04 AM

Actually, Human rights do change, for all the assumption that such things are immutable, they change a great deal. Not only what Human rights are, but who they apply too as well. When the US Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, freedom and representation applied only to Rich, Landowning White Men. If you were Black and a slave, you were property, you had no rights. Your right to defend yourself was to let your master beat you if he wanted, because if you were to raise your hands to white folk, even in self defence, you were some dead property, ya' hear? There's a whole fleet of 'basic Human Rights' that didn't exist before the 20th century. To modern eyes the America of the Founding Fathers would likely have been quite a hideous tyranny, unless, of course, you were one of those Rich, landowning White guys.

But my main point was that language changes. The wording of the Second Amendment may mean one thing today, but that doesn't mean that's what it meant when it was written, nor what the founding fathers actually meant. Words change, sometimes drastically, and interestingly these changes can reflect on the changes of the wider society. Just consider the word 'franchise', it used to mean to go and vote; one would exercise one's franchise to vote. Now it means corporate monopoly of a marketable name or product. Militia in the 1700's was a non-professional army, that was called up in time of War, in the modern day the closest allegories would be the US Reservists or the British Territorial Army; civilian soldiers in the sense that they make a living outside of the military, yes, but hardly the idea of every civilian in the country being an armed militiaman. Similarly, the phrase 'to bear arms' didn't mean to own weapons, it meant to serve in the military. There are numerous contemporary documents where the phrase 'to bear arms' or similar connotations are used in reference to a serving member of the military, as we'd say 'soldiering' or similar today, though none I know of that indicate it too mean private weapon ownership. A well regulated militia (well regulated being a fairly important fragment there) would have more in common with the US Reserves than an ad hoc grouping of gun-ho survivalists, and the term 'to bear arms' meant to be an armed member of the military. Thus using the language and it's meaning of the day, to interpret a statement made at the time, I would say the Second Amendment could equally be interpreted to mean defending the right of individual states to maintain an independent militia, a part time army, and that no one's right to join their states army, nor the states right to maintain or raise that army, should be infringed.

Even so, if the right to bear arms means the right to own private weapons, why is it just small arms? The Second Amendment doesn't say “The Right to Bear Small Arms”, it says “Arms”, which is a just, in military parlance, Armaments. That includes everything from a knife to heavy artillery, munitions and Nuclear weapons. Here's an example of the tools changing. When the Founding Fathers wrote that rather open ended statement, no one had split the atom, nobody knew the atom really existed, beyond a vague philosophical sense. Arms were Cannon, Arms were single shot musket. Arms were not Fighter Jets, machine guns and tanks. So yes, I do wonder that if the Founding Fathers could have seen the modern context within which private weapon ownership falls, they would have been as free with it as the NRA suggests. No one (well no one fully sane) thinks any individual should have access to the supreme destructive power of a modern Thermonuclear weapon, but if the Second Amendment really says exactly that which you suggest, then Thermonuclear Weapons certainly fall under the heading 'arms', whose ownership should not be infringed. Or we can accept that they lived in a different time, a different context with different pressures, different language, and in fact a different set of 'basic human rights', what those rights were, and who they applied to.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 7:13 AM

Quote:
Truth is you can't be sure, the founding fathers may have been for more stringent weapon protection in the modern context, they may not.

In point of fact, they were VERY VERY explicit about it to a painstaking degree.

Just read the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers to comprehend their reasons, intentions and effective decisions on the matter in explicitly clear detail.

NOT a standing army of ANY kind (the National Guard qualifies as such to the founders standards, and is thus anethma to their purpose)

NOT a state-run enterprise whatsoever save for the selection of officers, as often as not simply appointed to the position by the men they would be under.

Essentially the "militia" is the whole body of the people, and by well regulated they mean well ARMED and well TRAINED, with MILITARY WEAPONS.

It was the explicit intent (as mentioned in the Federalist Papers) that the "militia" should OUTGUN any raised conventional military force for the express purpose of a check and balance against that bastion of tyranny, the Standing Federal Army, which by their intent, should not exist nor have ever existed in this country, Madison in particular was SO convinced they had set up conditions that would ever prevent it, that no further explicit provision was required.

The intent and purpose of the second amendment was to make damn sure that at ANY point in time, due to superior force and quality of arms and training, we the people could kick the crap out of the Gov AND any military, police, or security forces they raised should they get out of line.

That means MILITARY WEAPONS, without restriction, up to, inlcuding, and beyond anything the US Army is or can be equipped with - period.

Read the documents yourselves if you doubt any word of mine on the matter.

And if you don't believe such a militia can kick ass when need be, just have a look at what happened on kings mountain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kings_Mountain

All papers by timeline.
http://www.constitution.org/afp/afpchron.htm

Federalist Papers by number.
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedi.htm

AntiFederalist Papers by number.
http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/index.htm

Those who put that Amendment there left no doubt whatsoever of its intent nor its meaning, it's only by completely distorting it that ANY restriction of that right exists at all.

-Frem

As this government will not enjoy the confidence of the people, but be executed by force, it will be a very expensive and burdensome government. The standing army must be numerous, and as a further support, it wilt be the policy of this government to multiply officers in every department; judges, collectors, tax-gatherers, excisemen and the whole host of revenue officers, will swarm over the land, devouring the hard earnings of the industrious like the locusts of old, impoverishing and desolating all before them. . . .
AntiFederalist #29

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 7:24 AM

Have you got anything that specifically deals with the idea that they weren't talking about a regulated state militia, because the word militia and the phrase "to bear arms" didn't mean what you suggest, and I'm not in the mood to dig through a hundred odd links to support your case for you.

Essentially, 'militia' is NOT the whole body of the people, it's a militia, not the populous, hence them being different names for different things.

The meaning of the word militia is a non-professional army, part time and called up in crisis. It doesn't necessarily mean the whole body of the populous, that is not the meaning of the word now, and it is not the meaning of the word then.

Besides that, nothing you posted deals with what you quoted.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 7:36 AM

Ah, here ya go, Madison, from Federalist Paper #46...

"The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it. The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition, it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people. On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States, as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded, of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the State governments, must, on the most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the authors of them."

Idealistic moron...
I cite to you that Historically, 200 some odd years down the road, the Anti-Federalists were RIGHT on almost every single point they raised, but NONE more clearly than this one.

Remember also, that the very first "Patriot Act", the Alien and Sedition acts, were thrown as us almost immediately by one of these Federalist bastards, ole John Adams, so it's not hard to see WHY they didn't want certain protections enshrined in law, yes ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 7:38 AM

If yer unwilling to do the research to support your opinion, offer it as opinion, not fact, then!

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 7:46 AM

And Patrick Henry's very eloquent and correct counter argument, copy/pasted directly from here.
http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_12.htm#henry-07

Mr. HENRY. Mr. Chairman, in my judgment the friends of the opposition have to act cautiously. We must make a firm stand before we decide. I was heard to say, a few days ago, that the sword and purse were the two great instruments of government; and I professed great repugnance at parting with the purse, without any control, to the proposed system of government. And now, when we proceed in this formidable compact, and come to the national defence, the sword, I am persuaded we ought to be still more cautious and circumspect; for I feel still more reluctance to surrender this most valuable of rights.

The honorable member who has risen to explain several parts of the system was pleased to say, that the best way of avoiding the danger of a standing army, was, to have the militia in such a way as to render it unnecessary; and that, as the new government would have power over the militia, we should have no standing army — it being unnecessary. This argument destroys itself. It demands a power, and denies the probability of its exercise. There are suspicions of power on one hand, and absolute and unlimited confidence {385} on the other. I hope to be one of those who have a large share of suspicion. I leave it to this house, if there be not too small a portion on the other side, by giving up too much to that government. You can easily see which is the worst of two extremes. Too much suspicion may be corrected. If you give too little power to-day, you may give more to-morrow. But the reverse of the proposition will not hold. If you give too much power to-day, you cannot retake it to-morrow: for to-morrow will never come for that purpose. If you have the fate of other nations, you will never see it. It is easier to supply deficiencies of power than to take back excess of power. This no man can deny.

But, says the honorable member, Congress will keep the militia armed; or, in other words, they will do their duty. Pardon me if I am too jealous and suspicious to confide in this remote possibility. My honorable friend went on a supposition that the American rulers, like all others, will depart from their duty without bars and checks. No government can be safe without checks. Then he told us they had no temptation to violate their duty, and that it would be their interest to perform it. Does he think you are to trust men who cannot have separate interests from the people? It is a novelty in the political world (as great a novelty as the system itself) to find rulers without private interests, and views of personal emoluments, and ambition. His supposition, that they will not depart from their duty, as having no interest to do so, is no satisfactory answer to my mind. This is no check. The government may be most intolerable and destructive, if this be our only security.

My honorable friend attacked the honorable gentleman with universal principles — that, in all nations and ages, rulers have been actuated by motives of individual interest and private emoluments, and that in America it would be so also. I hope, before we part with this great bulwark, this noble palladium of safety, we shall have such checks interposed as will render us secure. The militia, sir, is our ultimate safety. We can have no security without it. But then, he says that the power of arming and organizing the militia is concurrent, and to be equally exercised by the general and state governments. I am sure, and I trust in the candor of that gentleman, that he will recede from that {386} opinion, When his recollection will be called to the particular clause which relates to it.

As my worthy friend said, there is a positive partition of power between the two governments. To Congress is given the power of "arming, organizing, and disciplining the militia, and governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States." To the state legislatures is given the power of appointing the officers, and training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." I observed before, that, if the power be concurrent as to arming them, it is concurrent in other respects. If the states have the right of arming them, &c., concurrently, Congress, has a concurrent power of appointing the officers, and training the militia. If Congress have that power, it is absurd. To admit this mutual concurrence of powers will carry on into endless absurdity — that Congress has nothing exclusive on the one hand, nor the states on the other. The rational explanation is, that Congress shall have exclusive power of arming them, &c., and that the State governments shall have exclusive power of appointing the officers, &c. Let me put it in another light.

May we not discipline and arm them, as well as Congress, if the power be concurrent? so that our militia shall have two sets of arms, double sets of regimentals, &c.; and thus, at a very great cost, we shall be doubly armed. The great object is, that every man be armed. But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms, &c.? Every one Who is able may have a gun. But we have learned, by experience, that, necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without. limitation or bounds, how will your militia be afraid? You trust to chance; for sure I am that that nation which shall trust its liberties in other hands cannot long exist. If gentlemen are serious when they suppose a concurrent power, where can be the impolicy to amend it? Or, in other words, to say that Congress shall not arm or discipline them, till the states Shall have refused or neglected to do it? This is my object. I only wish to bring it to what they themselves say is implied. Implication is to be the foundation of our civil liberties; and when you speak of arming the militia by a {387} concurrence of power, you use implication. But implication will not save you, when a strong army of veterans comes upon you. You would be laughed at by the whole world, for trusting your safety implicitly to implication.

The argument of my honorable friend was, that rulers might tyrannize. The answer he received was, that they will not. In saying that they would not, he admitted they might. In this great, this essential part of the Constitution, if you are safe, it is not from the Constitution, but from the virtues of the men in government. If gentlemen are willing to trust themselves and posterity to so slender and improbable a chance, they have greater strength of nerves than I have.

The honorable gentleman, in endeavoring to answer the question why the militia were to be called forth to execute the laws, said that the civil power would probably do it. He is driven to say, that the civil power may do it instead of the militia. Sir, the military power ought not to interpose till the civil power refuse. If this be the spirit of your new Constitution, that the laws are to be enforced by military coercion, we may easily divine the happy consequences which will result from it. The civil power is not to be employed at all. If it be, show me it. I read inattentively, and could see nothing to warrant a belief that the civil power can be called for. I should be glad to see the power that authorizes Congress to do so. The sheriff will be aided by military force. The most wanton excesses may be committed under color of this; for every man in office, in the states, is to take an oath to support it in all its operations. The honorable gentleman said, in answer to the objection that the militia might be marched from New Hampshire to Georgia, that the members of the government would not attempt to excite the indignation of the people. Here, again, we have the general unsatisfactory answer, that they will be virtuous, and that there is no danger.

Will gentlemen be satisfied with an answer which admits of dangers and abuses if they be wicked? Let us put it of their power to do mischief. I am convinced, there is no safety in the paper on the table as it stands now. I am sorry to have an occasion to pass a eulogium on the British government, as gentlemen may object to it. But how natural it is, when comparing deformities to beauty, to be {388} struck with the superiority of the British government to that system! In England, self-love — self-interest — powerfully stimulates the executive magistrate to advance the prosperity of the nation. In the most distant part, he feels the loss of his subjects. He will see the great advantage of his posterity inseparable from the felicity of his people. Man is a fallen creature, a fallible being, and cannot be depended on without self-love. Your President will not have the same motives of self-love to impel him to favor your interests. His political character is but transient, and he will promote, as much as possible, his own private interests. He will conclude, the constant observation has been that he will abuse his power, and that it is expected. The king of England has a more permanent interest. His stock, his family, is to continue in possession of the same emolument. The more flourishing his nation, the more formidable and powerful is he. The sword and purse are not united, in that government, in the same hands, as in this system. Does not infinite security result from a separation?

But it is said that our Congress are more responsible than the British Parliament. It appears to me that there is no real, but there may be some specious responsibility. If Congress, in the execution of their unbounded powers, shall have done wrong, how will you come at them to punish them, if they are at the distance of five hundred miles? At such a great distance, they will evade responsibility altogether. If you have given up your militia, and. Congress shall refuse to arm them, you have lost every thing. Your existence will be precarious, because you depend on others, whose interests are not affected by your infelicity. If Congress are to arm us exclusively, the man of New Hampshire may vote for or against it, as well as the Virginian. The great distance and difference between the two places render it possible that the people of that country can know or pursue what will promote our convenience. I therefore contend that, if, Congress do not arm the militia, we ought to provide for it ourselves.

The intent, on both ends, is abundantly clear - us citizens, military grade weaponry, without restriction whatsoever.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 7:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by PirateCat:
Kwicko, can you say thread hog. Boy, its not always about you. Its about the 2nd amendment. A guaranteed right. Its not about your ghetto life. You live there because the hookers are cheap. Get off the fat crack. Now DC can join the rest of the Union. You have a right to protect yourself, family, and property. Idiots always say that the armed citizen is dangerous. But cops are your saviors. Criminals are better with arms than veterans. Cops are the criminals. Shooten engine blocks what a fag.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

PirateCat, how do you spell "retard"? Oh, that's right - you can't.

I'll have to defer to your superior knowledge of cheap hookers, but you really shouldn't call your mom "cheap". After all, she was decent enough not to swallow you, or let you run down the crack of her ass to become a stain on the sheets after her brother had his fun...

As for the rest of your post, I'll only repeat what Samuel L. Jackson asked in "Pulp Fiction" :

"ENGLISH, MOTHERFUCKER! DO YOU SPEAK IT?!"

Keep "worken" on it - someday maybe you'll be reading at the third-grade level. That would make you the most well-educated person in your family tree.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 7:56 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Citizen,

You made 2 good arguments. (I commend you for them) I will attempt to answer both of them.

1. The Bill of Rights only applied to white, land owing men...as such anyone else had NO rights. Yes, you are correctin that, at the time, it applied only to them. However it left a back door open, so that things could change.

This point, however, does not apply. The young U.S.A., at the time, had just begun. It is my belief that the founding fathers did not want to immediatly start a civil war by granting freedoms to slaves and to women.

They left it open to be done, but the establishment of the country was primary.

The founding fathers left it to later generations to decided. And we did, with the Civil War, (just as they had predicted).

This does not mean that they wanted to hold the door closed to slaves or to women. Just that it could not be decided and still keep the country intact at the time. But they knew that it would be decided one day, which is why they made it so that it COULD BE DECIDED.

2. Why doesnt it apply to nukes?

Well, why doesnt it? No, they didnt have nukes back then, and technology has far outpaced what anyone could have thought of.

However, one of the major points of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, is that NO ONE MAN CAN CONTROL THE COUNTRY. With a nuke, you could threaten and terrorize the country into doing whatever you wanted.

Or at least a large chunk of it. This is UnConstituional. Our founding fathers set up this country to protect itself from despots who would try and take complete power. However, it left the door open again, so that if a despot did rise, the people would ahve the means and the ability to strike them down.

The right of a human being, to protect themselves and their families, from threats both foreign and domestic should never even be questioned.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 8:03 AM

@Frem:

Yeah, for a Coup de grâce that's rather ambiguous at best. The only suggestion that militia means the entire population (To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands) could just as easily mean he expected the whole state populace to rise up and join the state militia, if the Federal Army was to ever attack, than the Militia IS the entire populace.

In contrast in a number of places it suggests the militia is very much what I said it is, a state organised and regulated non-professional citizen army, called up in time of crises. For instance:
But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia indicates the militia is under the command of the state government, and thus implies that the well regulated militia is more of a formal territorial army, than a ad hoc pairing of gun owners. That interpretation is also more in keeping with the meaning of the word 'militia'.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 8:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by PirateCat:
Kwicko, can you say thread hog. Boy, its not always about you. Its about the 2nd amendment. A guaranteed right. Its not about your ghetto life. You live there because the hookers are cheap. Get off the fat crack. Now DC can join the rest of the Union. You have a right to protect yourself, family, and property. Idiots always say that the armed citizen is dangerous. But cops are your saviors. Criminals are better with arms than veterans. Cops are the criminals. Shooten engine blocks what a fag.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

PirateCat, how do you spell "retard"? Oh, that's right - you can't.

I'll have to defer to your superior knowledge of cheap hookers, but you really shouldn't call your mom "cheap". After all, she was decent enough not to swallow you, or let you run down the crack of her ass to become a stain on the sheets after her brother had his fun...

As for the rest of your post, I'll only repeat what Samuel L. Jackson asked in "Pulp Fiction" :

"ENGLISH, MOTHERFUCKER! DO YOU SPEAK IT?!"

Keep "worken" on it - someday maybe you'll be reading at the third-grade level. That would make you the most well-educated person in your family tree.

Mike

This is by far the sickest, nastiest, most vile and disgusting post I've ever seen at FFF. I hope and expect you to be reported and banned, or at least tagged as offensive.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 8:40 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Freedom of speech.....even if we dont agree with what or how it is said. Everyone has the right to voice their opinion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 8:52 AM

Yes, freedom of speech, but FFF's asks you to be civil. You cannot spew out the kind of vile filth that this "person" wrote to Piratecat...or is that how you want this board to be? He's likely already been reported, and I expect to see him tagged or banned soon.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 8:54 AM

ERIC

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

"The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made.

Wow, seems like he's saying "okay, here's some crazy shit that could NEVER happen," and describing the present state of affairs exactly.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 9:00 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Again, freedom of speech. We all have the right to say whatever the f*** we feel like.

Buit I agree, we should keep things civil.

Everyone should get to have fun on the playground....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 9:17 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"You cannot spew out the kind of vile filth that this "person" wrote to Piratecat ..."
Or the filth that PirateCat spewed, like this: "Its not about your ghetto life. You live there because the hookers are cheap. Get off the fat crack. ... Shooten engine blocks what a fag."

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 9:26 AM

Quote:

This is by far the sickest, nastiest, most vile and disgusting post I've ever seen at FFF. I hope and expect you to be reported and banned, or at least tagged as offensive.

Jongs: I *have* kept a civil tongue - until it was time NOT to. Read the posts, in order. Note where I'm referred to as "what a fag" because I stated that I would rather disable someone's car than kill them, even if I were within my rights to do so.

Quote:
PirateCat wrote:

Its not about your ghetto life. You live there because the hookers are cheap. Get off the fat crack. Now DC can join the rest of the Union. You have a right to protect yourself, family, and property. Idiots always say that the armed citizen is dangerous. But cops are your saviors. Criminals are better with arms than veterans. Cops are the criminals. Shooten engine blocks what a fag.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If you want to use vile, sick, twisted things to attack me, prepare for me to do the same to you. You want to engage me in a war of words or a battle of wits? Bring it. I'll speak to you in exactly the same kind of language you use towards me. If you're civil, I'll be civil; if you're not, don't expect me to play nice.

As for the "thread hog" accusation, fine. I posted several times in this thread because it's something I have strong feelings about. If PirateCat is unable to keep up because his lips get tired from all the reading, that's his problem, not mine. If he's not ready to swim in the deep end of the pool, he'd better not go off the high dive...

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 9:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"You cannot spew out the kind of vile filth that this "person" wrote to Piratecat ..."
Or the filth that PirateCat spewed, like this: "Its not about your ghetto life. You live there because the hookers are cheap. Get off the fat crack. ... Shooten engine blocks what a fag."

I can always count on Rue to defend the indefensible. But I do give you props for always keeping things civil, and generally never going beyond calling someone stupid or boring or irrelevent.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 9:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Again, freedom of speech. We all have the right to say whatever the f*** we feel like.

Buit I agree, we should keep things civil.

Everyone should get to have fun on the playground....

Agreed, and thanks for the support. I try my damnedest to NOT use "uncivil" language until it is used against me. But I'll be damned if I'm going to stand by and be insulted and have nothing to say about it.

Read PirateCat's post again. Notice that there is hardly a single thing in it that's not a personal attack against ME. So if I respond, now I'M the bad guy? Fuck that.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 9:48 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

We are getting off topic....

Or maybe not....hmmm. Is it possible that the right to carry concealed brings with it the neccesity of speaking and acting civily?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 9:54 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Better to have people shooting each other in the street 'cause they thought someone dissed 'em. Yeah, that's a step up. And real polite, like, too.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 10:13 AM

Quote:
We are getting off topic....

Or maybe not....hmmm. Is it possible that the right to carry concealed brings with it the neccesity of speaking and acting civilly?

Could be. As Heinlein said, 'An armed society is a polite society."

Back to topic.

M

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 10:35 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

True. Let us get back to topic.

I have a question: Why did the "Wild West" fail?

I mean, there was plenty of land, and very little laws. Everyone was armed.

How did it turn from that almost utopian society to this?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 11:02 AM

You want specifics ?
Easy enough.

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms."
-- Richard Henry Lee: From (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

"... who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country...? I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
-- George Mason: From Elliot, Debates at 425-426:

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry: From 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.

"No free government was ever founded or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state.... Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen."
-- From State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788

"The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them"
-- Tench Coxe, An American Citizen IV, October 21, 1787

The "Militia" of the United States is us, all of us, any of us, both willing and able to pick up and use a firearm at all - this was universally understood and acknowledged by both Federalist and AntiFederalists to a point where it was generally assumed.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 11:16 AM

Quote:
Wow, seems like he's saying "okay, here's some crazy shit that could NEVER happen," and describing the present state of affairs exactly.

That's why I posted it - to show how dead-bang correct the AntiFederalist were on almost every single point.

Go back and read through both sets of papers and keep firmly in your mind that all of this was written 200 and some years BEFORE the current state of affairs, when it wasn't so bloody painful obvious that things WOULD come to this...

Except that some folk DID see it coming, tried to point it out to folk, and got nothing but mockery and scorn for the doing - I will point out to you also that even as recently as I was in high school, we were taught about the Federalist Papers, but didja know, somehow VERY conspiciously missing altogether was ANY mention what-so-ever of the Anti-Federalist papers, not in any of my textbooks, classes or other materials were they so much as even mentioned, and I was taught that the Federalist Papers were a simple explaination of the Government our "wise" Founders were laying out for us...

Completely missing was even the question of any opposition to the idea, and noteably absent was any mention of Anti-Federalists, which, when I turned to encyclopedia brittanica and learned of it, caused the initial explosion in my history class between me and the teacher which lead to my interest in actual history versus the distorted propaganda taught in public schools under the guise of historical education.

One of my flakier hobbies is collecting old history textbooks and comparing them to each other and reality to watch not only how our history is distorted in the teaching, but how even the level and type of distortion changes based on the political climate of the times.

Care to lay odds on whether or not current middle and high school history classes admit that we killed Mossedeigh, propped up the Shah, trained Osama and supplied weapons to Saddam ?

Learning history is best done entirely as a DIY matter, don't take nobody's word for it, not even mine, cause, yanno... people lie.

See my signature line for why I feel that is so important.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 11:25 AM

Thanks, Frem, for the wonderful and illuminating quotes.

It's not a well-known fact, and it's hard for many to believe, but IT IS NOT ILLEGAL to own a silencer, a sawed-off shotgun, or a fully-automatic machinegun in this country. It's perfectly legal, IF you jump through the proper hoops and fill out the necessary paperwork. And pay the proper bribes - er, I mean FEES. Those legal hassles are enough to make me uninterested in pursuing such weaponry, but your average gang-banger or meth-dealer has no such problems - he gets the weapons, and if he gets busted, he was already a major criminal to begin with, so it's really no skin off his ass to have one more weapons charge against him.

Anyhoo, I'm glad the Court reaffirmed The Second, but it scares me that it was a 5-4 vote.

Now,

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 11:32 AM