|
On August 15 2009 03:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:+ Show Spoiler +AGERSTOWN, Md. — The Secret Service is investigating a man who authorities said held a sign reading "Death to Obama" outside a town hall meeting on health-care reform in western Maryland.
The sign also read, "Death to Michelle and her two stupid kids," referring to the first name of President Barack Obama's wife, said Washington County Sheriff's Capt. Peter Lazich.
Lazich said deputies detained the unidentified, 51-year-old man near the entrance to Hagerstown Community College about 1 p.m. Wednesday after getting calls from a number of people attending the meeting held by Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md. Obama was not at the meeting.
The sheriff's office turned the man over to the Secret Service, Lazich said.
Barbara Golden, special agent in charge of the agency's Baltimore field office, said Thursday that an investigation is ongoing but declined further comment. A spokesman at the agency's Washington headquarters also declined to discuss the investigation.
Police said there were no other arrests among the nearly 1,000 people, some carrying protest signs, who came to the college for the meeting or demonstrated off-campus.
Cardin's national communications director, Sue Walitsky, called the incident "unfortunate." She said she was unaware of it until Thursday morning. ![[image loading]](http://static.crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2009/08/Death_Sign2_82322.jpg) C&L Image http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jCgSUAAjXk2QnMqrDhdc8TFV8F_gD9A24JH80http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/secret-service-looking-into-obama-joker-fax-2009-08-07.htmlhttp://www.splcenter.org/news/item.jsp?aid=392&splcnewsletter=newsgen-081209
I'm sure that MUST be the first time someone has EVER protested against a president with signs about his death or calling him a nazi or other crazy stuff like that.
oh....nevermind + Show Spoiler +
Oh, but wait, maybe this news you are sharing with us is amazing because it is the first time anyone has actually advocating KILLING a president with a sign during a protest. That must be it.
oh....nevermind + Show Spoiler +
Wow, that one guy with a sign is some really incredible news isn't it? But I guess it was against Obama and we should hold anti-Obama protesters to a higher standard than anti-Bush protesters because....well because its OBAMA right?
EDIT: also, lol at his dinky little sign sign compared to the huge "Kill Bush" signs.
|
On August 15 2009 04:02 Mortality wrote:
It's funny how a few pictures of crackpots holding signs wishing death to President Obama can be used to sway public opinion into thinking that there is a dangerous massive right-wing conspiracy going on.
That is the whole point of this thread and that is why I find Stealthblue's posts so annoying because they all have that purpose.
|
|
|
I loathe the fact that the mainstream tries to paint the picture that the Government is infallible. One of our most important rights is the redress of grievances to our representatives. Many of whom do not care what we have to say and dismiss their constituents. Look at the August recess. Many members are refusing to meet with constituents and are deliberately avoiding them. How is this representation? Still others are using intimidation tactics by holding meetings in Union halls, and other such hostile areas for those who oppose the current legislation. How is this allowable? When will enough be enough? Do we need a Coxey Army or Whiskey Rebellion? Hell, yes! We the people have the power, we consent to being governed not the other way around.
When the Government starts to impede on our natural rights, as they have done and continue to do it that prudence indeed dictates: That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
You can label the opposition as Extremists and try to paint them un-American all you will, but the fact of the matter is at the heart of being an American is our founding. To abandon those principles is to abandon being an American. So, you can call us extremists all you like. We will continue to fight for our freedoms and liberties both economic and politically. We will fight such acts akin to the Alien and Sedition Acts, Patriot Act, Fairness doctrine, and other castigating legislation.
So, go ahead call me an extremist, but in doing so you call our countries founding as extremist and dangerous, so just think a little bit about that.
Do not misinterpret this as a notion to murder, rather to transpose and evict those currently in office by marching and forcefully throwing out of power those who seek to destroy our natural rights. To alter Government, is in the best interest of the people and well within our rights. Do we sit idly by and let our freedoms and liberties erode, or will you fight for them and your convictions. Choose a side.
|
|
|
United Kingdom2674 Posts
It would be funny if it were not so frightening.
|
On August 19 2009 16:59 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:It would be funny if it were not so frightening.
Luckily frightening is not a justification to abridge another persons rights. If you want frightening the cities and states with the most stringent Gun Laws ironically have the highest gun crime rates.
|
United Kingdom2674 Posts
On August 19 2009 17:02 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 16:59 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:It would be funny if it were not so frightening. Luckily frightening is not a justification to abridge another persons rights. If you want frightening the cities and states with the most stringent Gun Laws ironically have the highest gun crime rates.
I fail to see the relevance to my post of your response.
|
On August 19 2009 19:31 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 17:02 Aegraen wrote:On August 19 2009 16:59 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:It would be funny if it were not so frightening. Luckily frightening is not a justification to abridge another persons rights. If you want frightening the cities and states with the most stringent Gun Laws ironically have the highest gun crime rates. I fail to see the relevance to my post of your response.
It has all relevancy. It is no more frightening than driving down an interstate. You say it is frightening because you create this fallacy in your mind that a weapon makes a law abiding citizen suddenly a craving mad man who seeks to commit crime. In fact, it is the exact opposite where law abiding citizens carrying arms lowers crime because they are not a susceptible target. This is taught in every Intelligence school, hard targets and soft targets. The criminals never target the hard targets because of the risk. This is why you see higher gun crimes and crime in general in places that have strict gun policies and laws. It is incongruent with evidence and logic to assume every human being is at heart a criminal and by providing easy means in which to kill they turn into the aforementioned. This is false.
So, go ahead be frightened by a law abiding citizen, in which you are actually safer next to him and around him than you would be walking down a street in downtown DC which had outlawed firearms (Against the Constitution; ruling overturned by 5-4. Just goes to show you how SCOTUS doesn't actually really stand up for the Constitution, rather it institutionalizes its doctrines and empathies.).
|
I think you are failing to separate the percentage of coverage with what they are covering.
Did you ever think that why the reason The Republican Party gets more criticism is because of the Republicans? There is no doubt the Republican Party has more Gun-nuts and Christian radicals than The Democrat party. I think you'll find that percentage of positive and negative coverage of candidates is relativity even. It is only when some other crazy shit happens that coverage gets skewed.
|
United Kingdom2674 Posts
On August 19 2009 19:45 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 19:31 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:On August 19 2009 17:02 Aegraen wrote:On August 19 2009 16:59 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:It would be funny if it were not so frightening. Luckily frightening is not a justification to abridge another persons rights. If you want frightening the cities and states with the most stringent Gun Laws ironically have the highest gun crime rates. I fail to see the relevance to my post of your response. It has all relevancy. It is no more frightening than driving down an interstate. You say it is frightening because you create this fallacy in your mind that a weapon makes a law abiding citizen suddenly a craving mad man who seeks to commit crime. In fact, it is the exact opposite where law abiding citizens carrying arms lowers crime because they are not a susceptible target. This is taught in every Intelligence school, hard targets and soft targets. The criminals never target the hard targets because of the risk. This is why you see higher gun crimes and crime in general in places that have strict gun policies and laws. It is incongruent with evidence and logic to assume every human being is at heart a criminal and by providing easy means in which to kill they turn into the aforementioned. This is false. So, go ahead be frightened by a law abiding citizen, in which you are actually safer next to him and around him than you would be walking down a street in downtown DC which had outlawed firearms (Against the Constitution; ruling overturned by 5-4. Just goes to show you how SCOTUS doesn't actually really stand up for the Constitution, rather it institutionalizes its doctrines and empathies.).
I think you are living in a little world of your own in which anyone who says anything you don't like is placed in a little compartment and then subjected to one of your many prefabricated rants. Have I said anything about firearms or firearms legislation in this thread?
And will you please, please stop going on about the US Constitution. It has no magical hold over me.
|
On August 19 2009 19:55 Tyraz wrote:I think you are failing to separate the percentage of coverage with what they are covering. Did you ever think that why the reason The Republican Party gets more criticism is because of the Republicans? There is no doubt the Republican Party has more Gun-nuts and Christian radicals than The Democrat party. I think you'll find that percentage of positive and negative coverage of [b]candidates[\b] is relativity even. It is only when some other crazy shit happens that coverage gets skewed.
No you are wrong.
http://blogs.stripes.com/blogs/readerscorner/column-examining-coverage-gap-between-obama-mccain
Secondly, the Democrat party propensity for egregious civil liberty violations as seen on campus' nationwide stopping free speech as seen with Tancredo and others is never given media exposure even though it is as much or more "flashy" than anything on the GOP side. It is clear favoritism especially when you have people opining about tingles up their leg and Obama's pectorals, secret fantasies wanting to fuck him, etc.
The only time GOP get coverage on any of the major networks is when something atrocious occurs, a scandal. However, when looking at the opposite the Democrats never get mentioned or if they do are on the back pages whenever a scandal sacks them. How much have you heard about John Conyers, mayorial politicians in downtown cities like Detroit and Baltimore, or the recent Chris Dodd scandal, not to mention the tons of scandals featuring politicians like Tim Geithner, Charlie Rangel, and Barney Frank.
There have been written many books by ex personnel within these companies about the extreme bias. When you have GE owning NBC and being a subsidary for the US Government which goes hand in hand with Democrats, you actually believe they will retain any semblance of objectivity?
Now look at college campuses. Many recent studies and books have shown that on average Liberals are 9:1 on most majory campuses. Not only is the Education system indoctrinated with a one party ideology which is destructive in such a society as ours, but it shows how prevalent the media and other Government institutions are stacked in the favor of one ideology. To always increase Government power, because Government power and the Democrats are one and the same; so are the Republicans by the way, but not to extent as Democrats.
So, no your thesis is false and has been proven with evidence. In any event, I am not opposed to the Press being this way, I am only worried when the Press colludes with the Government and that is exactly what has been happening for years upon years. The free-market will dictate which ideas will propagate as seen in the Talk Radio medium where Air America and liberal talk radio massively failed and where Conservative and Libertarian ideology is successful. That is what the consumers want.
|
On August 19 2009 19:45 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 19:31 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:On August 19 2009 17:02 Aegraen wrote:On August 19 2009 16:59 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:It would be funny if it were not so frightening. Luckily frightening is not a justification to abridge another persons rights. If you want frightening the cities and states with the most stringent Gun Laws ironically have the highest gun crime rates. I fail to see the relevance to my post of your response. It has all relevancy. It is no more frightening than driving down an interstate. You say it is frightening because you create this fallacy in your mind that a weapon makes a law abiding citizen suddenly a craving mad man who seeks to commit crime. In fact, it is the exact opposite where law abiding citizens carrying arms lowers crime because they are not a susceptible target. This is taught in every Intelligence school, hard targets and soft targets. The criminals never target the hard targets because of the risk. This is why you see higher gun crimes and crime in general in places that have strict gun policies and laws. It is incongruent with evidence and logic to assume every human being is at heart a criminal and by providing easy means in which to kill they turn into the aforementioned. This is false. So, go ahead be frightened by a law abiding citizen, in which you are actually safer next to him and around him than you would be walking down a street in downtown DC which had outlawed firearms (Against the Constitution; ruling overturned by 5-4. Just goes to show you how SCOTUS doesn't actually really stand up for the Constitution, rather it institutionalizes its doctrines and empathies.).
Oh I see. Care to elaborate on why the US has the highest gun ownership, and surprisingly enough the highest gun crime rate? I've heard this argument before, and you can (and probably do) apply the same logic on a national scale. You have a big army, you aren't a 'soft target'. Of course the irony of the situation is; that now you aren't the victims, your the aggressors.
Its this kind of attitude that becomes self perpetuating.
- First one kid arms himself with a knife to protect himself.
- Then everyone arms themselves with knives, knives become no longer enough
- Then one kid arms himself with a gun, to protect himself
- Then everyone arms themselves with guns, guns become no longer enough
- Then one kid arms himself with an antomatic rifle
- Then an everybody arms themselves with automatic rifles, they become no longer enough
So, my question is this: When does it stop? When will everybody become a 'hard target'.
If your going to arm a nation, at least have the forethought to think through the implications.
Edit: thats why cops in New Zealand and the UK don't carry guns. Obviously you don't see the self perpetuating nature of what your suggesting.
|
On August 19 2009 19:56 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 19:45 Aegraen wrote:On August 19 2009 19:31 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:On August 19 2009 17:02 Aegraen wrote:On August 19 2009 16:59 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:It would be funny if it were not so frightening. Luckily frightening is not a justification to abridge another persons rights. If you want frightening the cities and states with the most stringent Gun Laws ironically have the highest gun crime rates. I fail to see the relevance to my post of your response. It has all relevancy. It is no more frightening than driving down an interstate. You say it is frightening because you create this fallacy in your mind that a weapon makes a law abiding citizen suddenly a craving mad man who seeks to commit crime. In fact, it is the exact opposite where law abiding citizens carrying arms lowers crime because they are not a susceptible target. This is taught in every Intelligence school, hard targets and soft targets. The criminals never target the hard targets because of the risk. This is why you see higher gun crimes and crime in general in places that have strict gun policies and laws. It is incongruent with evidence and logic to assume every human being is at heart a criminal and by providing easy means in which to kill they turn into the aforementioned. This is false. So, go ahead be frightened by a law abiding citizen, in which you are actually safer next to him and around him than you would be walking down a street in downtown DC which had outlawed firearms (Against the Constitution; ruling overturned by 5-4. Just goes to show you how SCOTUS doesn't actually really stand up for the Constitution, rather it institutionalizes its doctrines and empathies.). I think you are living in a little world of your own in which anyone who says anything you don't like is placed in a little compartment and then subjected to one of your many prefabricated rants. Have I said anything about firearms or firearms legislation in this thread? And will you please, please stop going on about the US Constitution. It has no magical hold over me.
/Sigh.
http://www.examiner.com/x-2879-Austin-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m5d20-Violence-Policy-Center-proves-that-more-guns-means-less-violent-crime-murder
What evidence do you have to the contrary? Do you know the difference between hard and soft targets and causative factors of why criminals prefer soft targets? No, but I'm sure you have come to your conclusion based on emotion alone. Guns are bad therefore having Guns increases crime. What a fallacy.
|
United Kingdom2674 Posts
On August 19 2009 20:21 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 19:56 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:On August 19 2009 19:45 Aegraen wrote:On August 19 2009 19:31 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:On August 19 2009 17:02 Aegraen wrote:On August 19 2009 16:59 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:It would be funny if it were not so frightening. Luckily frightening is not a justification to abridge another persons rights. If you want frightening the cities and states with the most stringent Gun Laws ironically have the highest gun crime rates. I fail to see the relevance to my post of your response. It has all relevancy. It is no more frightening than driving down an interstate. You say it is frightening because you create this fallacy in your mind that a weapon makes a law abiding citizen suddenly a craving mad man who seeks to commit crime. In fact, it is the exact opposite where law abiding citizens carrying arms lowers crime because they are not a susceptible target. This is taught in every Intelligence school, hard targets and soft targets. The criminals never target the hard targets because of the risk. This is why you see higher gun crimes and crime in general in places that have strict gun policies and laws. It is incongruent with evidence and logic to assume every human being is at heart a criminal and by providing easy means in which to kill they turn into the aforementioned. This is false. So, go ahead be frightened by a law abiding citizen, in which you are actually safer next to him and around him than you would be walking down a street in downtown DC which had outlawed firearms (Against the Constitution; ruling overturned by 5-4. Just goes to show you how SCOTUS doesn't actually really stand up for the Constitution, rather it institutionalizes its doctrines and empathies.). I think you are living in a little world of your own in which anyone who says anything you don't like is placed in a little compartment and then subjected to one of your many prefabricated rants. Have I said anything about firearms or firearms legislation in this thread? And will you please, please stop going on about the US Constitution. It has no magical hold over me. /Sigh. http://www.examiner.com/x-2879-Austin-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m5d20-Violence-Policy-Center-proves-that-more-guns-means-less-violent-crime-murderWhat evidence do you have to the contrary? Do you know the difference between hard and soft targets and causative factors of why criminals prefer soft targets? No, but I'm sure you have come to your conclusion based on emotion alone. Guns are bad therefore having Guns increases crime. What a fallacy.
You really are astounding. You actually seem to think we are engaged in some kind of debate over firearms and firearms legislation. We are not. Do you not even read what people write in response to your posts? I have made no comment whatsoever in any post in this thread, or indeed in any thread for a very, very long time, with regard to firearms or firearms legislation. And yet here you are, third post in a row, prattling on about the subject as if you and I are involved in some kind of dialogue.
And you have the damn cheek to start your post with "/sigh".
|
On August 19 2009 20:29 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 20:21 Aegraen wrote:On August 19 2009 19:56 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:On August 19 2009 19:45 Aegraen wrote:On August 19 2009 19:31 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:On August 19 2009 17:02 Aegraen wrote:On August 19 2009 16:59 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:It would be funny if it were not so frightening. Luckily frightening is not a justification to abridge another persons rights. If you want frightening the cities and states with the most stringent Gun Laws ironically have the highest gun crime rates. I fail to see the relevance to my post of your response. It has all relevancy. It is no more frightening than driving down an interstate. You say it is frightening because you create this fallacy in your mind that a weapon makes a law abiding citizen suddenly a craving mad man who seeks to commit crime. In fact, it is the exact opposite where law abiding citizens carrying arms lowers crime because they are not a susceptible target. This is taught in every Intelligence school, hard targets and soft targets. The criminals never target the hard targets because of the risk. This is why you see higher gun crimes and crime in general in places that have strict gun policies and laws. It is incongruent with evidence and logic to assume every human being is at heart a criminal and by providing easy means in which to kill they turn into the aforementioned. This is false. So, go ahead be frightened by a law abiding citizen, in which you are actually safer next to him and around him than you would be walking down a street in downtown DC which had outlawed firearms (Against the Constitution; ruling overturned by 5-4. Just goes to show you how SCOTUS doesn't actually really stand up for the Constitution, rather it institutionalizes its doctrines and empathies.). I think you are living in a little world of your own in which anyone who says anything you don't like is placed in a little compartment and then subjected to one of your many prefabricated rants. Have I said anything about firearms or firearms legislation in this thread? And will you please, please stop going on about the US Constitution. It has no magical hold over me. /Sigh. http://www.examiner.com/x-2879-Austin-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m5d20-Violence-Policy-Center-proves-that-more-guns-means-less-violent-crime-murderWhat evidence do you have to the contrary? Do you know the difference between hard and soft targets and causative factors of why criminals prefer soft targets? No, but I'm sure you have come to your conclusion based on emotion alone. Guns are bad therefore having Guns increases crime. What a fallacy. You really are astounding. You actually seem to think we are engaged in some kind of debate over firearms and firearms legislation. We are not. Do you not even read what people write in response to your posts? I have made no comment whatsoever in any post in this thread, or indeed in any thread for a very, very long time, with regard to firearms or firearms legislation. And yet here you are, third post in a row, prattling on about the subject as if you and I are involved in some kind of dialogue. And you have the damn cheek to start your post with "/sigh".
I guess you don't understand the point I was addressing is that your "frightening" comment is based out of irrational fear which evidence proves is just that, bound by no truths. It in fact, is not frightening and is actually safer, than the alternative. I can't believe you can't see that when I've said it in two of the posts and was clearly implied in my first.
So no, this is not "frightening", whatever you are trying to imply by that statement.
|
United Kingdom2674 Posts
On August 19 2009 20:34 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 20:29 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:On August 19 2009 20:21 Aegraen wrote:On August 19 2009 19:56 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:On August 19 2009 19:45 Aegraen wrote:On August 19 2009 19:31 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:On August 19 2009 17:02 Aegraen wrote:On August 19 2009 16:59 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:It would be funny if it were not so frightening. Luckily frightening is not a justification to abridge another persons rights. If you want frightening the cities and states with the most stringent Gun Laws ironically have the highest gun crime rates. I fail to see the relevance to my post of your response. It has all relevancy. It is no more frightening than driving down an interstate. You say it is frightening because you create this fallacy in your mind that a weapon makes a law abiding citizen suddenly a craving mad man who seeks to commit crime. In fact, it is the exact opposite where law abiding citizens carrying arms lowers crime because they are not a susceptible target. This is taught in every Intelligence school, hard targets and soft targets. The criminals never target the hard targets because of the risk. This is why you see higher gun crimes and crime in general in places that have strict gun policies and laws. It is incongruent with evidence and logic to assume every human being is at heart a criminal and by providing easy means in which to kill they turn into the aforementioned. This is false. So, go ahead be frightened by a law abiding citizen, in which you are actually safer next to him and around him than you would be walking down a street in downtown DC which had outlawed firearms (Against the Constitution; ruling overturned by 5-4. Just goes to show you how SCOTUS doesn't actually really stand up for the Constitution, rather it institutionalizes its doctrines and empathies.). I think you are living in a little world of your own in which anyone who says anything you don't like is placed in a little compartment and then subjected to one of your many prefabricated rants. Have I said anything about firearms or firearms legislation in this thread? And will you please, please stop going on about the US Constitution. It has no magical hold over me. /Sigh. http://www.examiner.com/x-2879-Austin-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m5d20-Violence-Policy-Center-proves-that-more-guns-means-less-violent-crime-murderWhat evidence do you have to the contrary? Do you know the difference between hard and soft targets and causative factors of why criminals prefer soft targets? No, but I'm sure you have come to your conclusion based on emotion alone. Guns are bad therefore having Guns increases crime. What a fallacy. You really are astounding. You actually seem to think we are engaged in some kind of debate over firearms and firearms legislation. We are not. Do you not even read what people write in response to your posts? I have made no comment whatsoever in any post in this thread, or indeed in any thread for a very, very long time, with regard to firearms or firearms legislation. And yet here you are, third post in a row, prattling on about the subject as if you and I are involved in some kind of dialogue. And you have the damn cheek to start your post with "/sigh". I guess you don't understand the point I was addressing is that your "frightening" comment is based out of irrational fear which evidence proves is just that, bound by no truths. It in fact, is not frightening and is actually safer, than the alternative. I can't believe you can't see that when I've said it in two of the posts and was clearly implied in my first. So no, this is not "frightening", whatever you are trying to imply by that statement.
And finally there is a shaft of light cutting through the clouds which appear to have enveloped your brain. You have finally started to realise that you have been droning on in a non-existent debate because you placed your own erroneous interpretation on that very first post of mine.
I think many people here who watch that video will understand my response to it. You didn't.
|
United States41644 Posts
On August 19 2009 20:29 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 20:21 Aegraen wrote:On August 19 2009 19:56 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:On August 19 2009 19:45 Aegraen wrote:On August 19 2009 19:31 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:On August 19 2009 17:02 Aegraen wrote:On August 19 2009 16:59 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:It would be funny if it were not so frightening. Luckily frightening is not a justification to abridge another persons rights. If you want frightening the cities and states with the most stringent Gun Laws ironically have the highest gun crime rates. I fail to see the relevance to my post of your response. It has all relevancy. It is no more frightening than driving down an interstate. You say it is frightening because you create this fallacy in your mind that a weapon makes a law abiding citizen suddenly a craving mad man who seeks to commit crime. In fact, it is the exact opposite where law abiding citizens carrying arms lowers crime because they are not a susceptible target. This is taught in every Intelligence school, hard targets and soft targets. The criminals never target the hard targets because of the risk. This is why you see higher gun crimes and crime in general in places that have strict gun policies and laws. It is incongruent with evidence and logic to assume every human being is at heart a criminal and by providing easy means in which to kill they turn into the aforementioned. This is false. So, go ahead be frightened by a law abiding citizen, in which you are actually safer next to him and around him than you would be walking down a street in downtown DC which had outlawed firearms (Against the Constitution; ruling overturned by 5-4. Just goes to show you how SCOTUS doesn't actually really stand up for the Constitution, rather it institutionalizes its doctrines and empathies.). I think you are living in a little world of your own in which anyone who says anything you don't like is placed in a little compartment and then subjected to one of your many prefabricated rants. Have I said anything about firearms or firearms legislation in this thread? And will you please, please stop going on about the US Constitution. It has no magical hold over me. /Sigh. http://www.examiner.com/x-2879-Austin-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m5d20-Violence-Policy-Center-proves-that-more-guns-means-less-violent-crime-murderWhat evidence do you have to the contrary? Do you know the difference between hard and soft targets and causative factors of why criminals prefer soft targets? No, but I'm sure you have come to your conclusion based on emotion alone. Guns are bad therefore having Guns increases crime. What a fallacy. You really are astounding. You actually seem to think we are engaged in some kind of debate over firearms and firearms legislation. We are not. Do you not even read what people write in response to your posts? I have made no comment whatsoever in any post in this thread, or indeed in any thread for a very, very long time, with regard to firearms or firearms legislation. And yet here you are, third post in a row, prattling on about the subject as if you and I are involved in some kind of dialogue. And you have the damn cheek to start your post with "/sigh".
He is, isn't he. Constitution, Founding Fathers, Austrian Economics, Jefferson, War of Independence, SCOTUS, Liberty, Tyranny, Communism, Fascism. He picks one at random and rants.
|
On August 19 2009 16:59 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:It would be funny if it were not so frightening.
Does that really scare you? I mean honestly.
|
United Kingdom2674 Posts
On August 19 2009 20:46 Eniram wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 16:59 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:It would be funny if it were not so frightening. Does that really scare you? I mean honestly.
Well perhaps I am exaggerating a little. I am not sitting at my keyboard literally quaking at the thought of such people wandering around in a nation several thousands of miles away but I thought that was kind of obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://londonist.com/attachments/London_Lindsey/randydandy-PROTEST.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img.wonkette.com/images/thumbs/cd6a881d86730419d2ca3fa9c0067613.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://journalperu.com/pics/potd/bush_protest_latam.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.fightbacknews.org/2004/rnc/mnbanner.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/143-4350_IMG.JPG)
![[image loading]](http://thepeoplescube.com/images/KillBush_Kids_180.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/rallies/Bush_1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/rallies/Bush_2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/rallies/Bush_is_the_disease_punks_3531.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.philosophyblog.com.au/images/kill-bush-posted-on-a-myspace-site.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.theodoresworld.net/pcfreezone/vile5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://maaadddog.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/kill_bush_sights.jpg?w=300&h=276)
