NPR: I don't think that you can expect to have civil conversation with anybody... that's got a gun

[The Donkey]

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

The Donkey wrote:

Mr. TORRE: Right. And this is really one of those classic, you know friction lines between common sense and civil liberties. But ultimately, I think you do need to allow these people to carry those guns. I mean, as much as I'd love to see them as a personal preference not be there, the bottom line is we sort of deem - as a society, obviously - to air on the side of civil liberties because we feel the slope is slipperier if we start to curtail them. I'm in favor of common sense, and that's the whole deal with free speech. That's the whole deal with this.

Translation: You know, we have to throw 'them' a bone, even tho we know better, you know, cause common sense tells us, you know, that the right to bear arms doesn't Really mean, you know, that ordinary people actually might carry them around, you know?

" I think you do need to allow these people to carry those guns." Allow? Allow a pre-existing right to be freely exercised? 'Allow' a right enumerated in the US Constitution 'n echoed in nearly all state constitutions? Allow? Who the hell do these clowns think they are? Allow? "to air on the side of civil liberties because we feel the slope is slipperier if we start to curtail them." Was that to 'air' or 'err'? "Start to curtail them"? The right to bear arms is already 'curtailed'. What part of "Shall not be infringed" escapes their glance? "I'm in favor of common sense, and that's the whole deal with free speech. That's the whole deal with this." Unfortunately...this speech eludes common sense. Common sense would dictate that the people have the right to bear the means of self defense. Period. Common sense would dictate that the unrealistic and irrational sensitivities and fears of the few do not trump the rights of the many to defend themselves by force of arms.

Wanna try that again Donkey... or continue being a Neocom tool?

I do not agree with the statement. However, I think it is positive that someone who is opposed to open carry in these circumstances is willing to "allow" for it as a matter of civil liberties, and sees the analogy between the PRTKBA and free speech.

Don't you? Or does it make you feel better to call me a "Neocom tool" again? If so, I'll just go back to whistling the "Internationale"while Ifold flyers for democratic candidates. . . .

 

[Sonora Rebel]

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

I do not agree with the statement. However, I think it is positive that someone who is opposed to open carry in these circumstances is willing to "allow" for it as a matter of civil liberties, and sees the analogy between the PRTKBA and free speech.

Don't you? Or does it make you feel better to call me a "Neocom tool" again? If so, I'll just go back to whistling the "Internationale"while Ifold flyers for democratic candidates. . . .

A Right is a Right is a Right. Any analogy of 1A to 2A is that the 2A exists to protect the 1A. What circumstances? Acceptance and defense of tyranny? Yes... you are a Neocom tool. The Democrat party no longer exists but for the name. Fold away.

Socialists

Norman Matoon Thomas

November 20 1884 - December 19 1968

Was a leading American Socialist, pacifist

And six time Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America.

The Socialist Party candidate for President of the US

Norman Thomas said this in a 1944 speech:

‘The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the name ‘Liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.

He went on to say:

“I no longer need to run as a Presidential candidate for the Socialist party. The Democrat party has adopted our platform.”

 

[ixtow]

imported post

Damn, beat me to it...

 

[marine77]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

Task Force 16 wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

SlowDog wrote:

I have been reading a series of books put out in the early 90's. The author's name is William W. Johnstone....makes for some interesting ready. The US has been nuked cuzz our <Liberal>leaders disabled our defense systems. <Sound Familiar?>
In the book there is a new Society where everyone works and everyone is armed. No crime hardly at all because there are few rules.When rebuilding they got rid of all the people who demanded a hand out instead of working for what they wanted. But to live in the New Society the rules must be adhered to. Don't like it leave. Violate them and well.....usually ends up in death sentence to be carried out NOW!
Breaks into a persons house and they shoot you...no trial...just a burial. I am not saying it is Utopia but as long as the persons follow the few laws on the books and provide for themselves....life is GRAND......just saying

Its called anarchy and that is criminal itself. Even our forefathers embraced dissent and different opinions. Under the fictional imposed rules, one man's interpertation of the rules becomes another's violation. Which one is deemed to be right for dispatching the other?

Yata hey

The fictional scenario that is presented in Slowdogs description of the book is not one of anarchy. A society of anarchy would not have any rules or laws.

To be honest, I kind of like the described society. I've always favored the rule,"If you don't want to work, you don't eat".

Every thing in moderation. No work, no eat dictates frequently forget the young, the aged, the ill. Then there are problems with the theory of each according to his ability - some are more equal that others.

What I personally have a very great problem swallowing is the instant removal of any perceived offender for violation of rule/law. This smacks of the very form of government that we as a nation have repeatedly fought against. I will not support that judgment.

In matters of no choice, self-defense, I am prepared to do whatever I am forced to do. That is entirely a different matter.

Yata hey

Let me throw my two cents in about this. This percieved scenario is about a place

where like minded people got together to form a society that they wanted. They

either said yes and abided by the rules of this society or were caught doing what

was against the rules and got the punishment that was given to them. That was

what they agreed to live by. The society also brought up their children to respect

their elders and to help them out in their later years when they couldn't help them-

selves. And every person was a member of their armed forces, except for the child-

ren, the elderly, and the ones that were invalids.

 

[Task Force 16]

imported post

marine77 wrote:

Let me throw my two cents in about this. This percieved scenario is about a place

where like minded people got together to form a society that they wanted. They

either said yes and abided by the rules of this society or were caught doing what

was against the rules and got the punishment that was given to them. That was

what they agreed to live by. The society also brought up their children to respect

their elders and to help them out in their later years when they couldn't help them-

selves. And every person was a member of their armed forces, except for the child-

ren, the elderly, and the ones that were invalids.

Dang Marine77, you just descibed the days of the "Old Wild West".A preiod in this country's history when people had to rely on their own resourcefulness to survive, and makea lifefor themselves.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

Wanna try that again Donkey... or continue being a Neocom tool?

Donkey is a Democrat and he doesn't hide it, and he's trying to have a level-headed discussion. Instead he gets a bunch of insults and verbal abuse.

This is the ugly side of our "Internet Face".

 

[marine77]

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

marine77 wrote:

Let me throw my two cents in about this. This percieved scenario is about a place

where like minded people got together to form a society that they wanted. They

either said yes and abided by the rules of this society or were caught doing what

was against the rules and got the punishment that was given to them. That was

what they agreed to live by. The society also brought up their children to respect

their elders and to help them out in their later years when they couldn't help them-

selves. And every person was a member of their armed forces, except for the child-

ren, the elderly, and the ones that were invalids.

Dang Marine77, you just descibed the days of the "Old Wild West".A preiod in this country's history when people had to rely on their own resourcefulness to survive, and makea lifefor themselves.

In a way it was a throw back to sensible laws and everybody watching out for their

nieghbors and all

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

SNIP...Instead he gets a bunch of insults and verbal abuse.

This is the ugly side of our "Internet Face".

Maqua ain't no Tom Selleck.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

SNIP...Instead he gets a bunch of insults and verbal abuse.

This is the ugly side of our "Internet Face".

Maqua ain't no Tom Selleck.

That's Magua to you Englishman. Get your constants right.

Yata hey

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

SNIP...Instead he gets a bunch of insults and verbal abuse.

This is the ugly side of our "Internet Face".

Maqua ain't no Tom Selleck.

That's Magua to you Englishman. Get your constants right.

Yata hey

+1 to Grapeshot. Again. (sigh)

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

SNIP...Instead he gets a bunch of insults and verbal abuse.

This is the ugly side of our "Internet Face".

Maqua ain't no Tom Selleck.

That's Magua to you Englishman. Get your constants right.

Yata hey

+1 to Grapeshot. Again. (sigh)

Thank you, sir. We multiple personalities have an advantage - lots of help.

Yata hey

 

[Cracker]

imported post

McX wrote:

I don't think you can have a civil conversation with anyone who carries a gun? Hmmm, what about all the conversing were doing here? What about the Open Carry events? What about the positive, civil interactions between OC-ers and civil authorities? Sorry, complaint not valid, next please...

Well, that's easy to answer... Obviously it doesn't happen. Eeeeeveryone knows that anytime people with guns get together in public there is a shootout and rioting and looting and and and uhmmmmmm... hmmmm, what else can I pull out of my rear? uhm... Car jacking! yeah! NPR, are you hiring!?

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

SNIP...Instead he gets a bunch of insults and verbal abuse.

This is the ugly side of our "Internet Face".

Maqua ain't no Tom Selleck.

That's Magua to you Englishman. Get your constants right.

Yata hey

That's Magua to you,Yang-kee.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

SNIP...Instead he gets a bunch of insults and verbal abuse.

This is the ugly side of our "Internet Face".

Maqua ain't no Tom Selleck.

That's Magua to you Englishman. Get your constants right.

Yata hey

And your consonants too ... :shock:

 

[Task Force 16]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

Thank you, sir. We multiple personalities have an advantage - lots of help.

Yata hey

TWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET

Too many personalities on the field, 10 yard penalty from the spot of the faul... replay down.

:lol:

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

SNIP...Instead he gets a bunch of insults and verbal abuse.

This is the ugly side of our "Internet Face".

Maqua ain't no Tom Selleck.

That's Magua to you Englishman. Get your constants right.

Yata hey

And your consonants too ... :shock:

It was a weak paronmasia based on his constant noble, but errant behavior.

Yata hey

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

Thank you, sir. We multiple personalities have an advantage - lots of help.

Yata hey

TWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET

Too many personalities on the field, 10 yard penalty from the spot of the faul... replay down.

:lol:

Verderben?

Yata hey

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

SNIP...Instead he gets a bunch of insults and verbal abuse.

This is the ugly side of our "Internet Face".

Maqua ain't no Tom Selleck.

That's Magua to you Englishman. Get your constants right.

Yata hey

And your consonants too ... :shock:

It was a weak paronmasia based on his constant noble, but errant behavior.

Yata hey

o, gotcha ...

 

[Task Force 16]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

SNIP...Instead he gets a bunch of insults and verbal abuse.

This is the ugly side of our "Internet Face".

Maqua ain't no Tom Selleck.

That's Magua to you Englishman. Get your constants right.

Yata hey

And your consonants too ... :shock:

It was a weak paronmasia based on his constant noble, but errant behavior.

Yata hey

Do you mean paronomasia? :?

My dictionary sure does get a workout due to these forums. :cuss:

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

SNIP...Instead he gets a bunch of insults and verbal abuse.

This is the ugly side of our "Internet Face".

Maqua ain't no Tom Selleck.

That's Magua to you Englishman. Get your constants right.

Yata hey

And your consonants too ... :shock:

It was a weak paronmasia based on his constant noble, but errant behavior.

Yata hey

Do you mean paronomasia? :?

My dictionary sure does get a workout due to these forums. :cuss:

I'm sure he did ... hence my response of "o"...