quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

This is just more proof that the Second Amendment not only works, but that personal safety isn’t the responsibility of the government through police. It’s up to each individual to watch out for themselves and their families.

The only way to do so in modern society is by carrying a firearm.

Come on, lovemuffin. You must know that's tommyrot. Nearly all modern societies don't operate on that premise, but still operate much more successfully in terms of people's physical safety than does that of the USA.

Its two different mindsets.. in US they are still thinking the nearest sheriff is 200 miles away.. so everyone is a "Dirty Harry"..

according to this Harvard dude..
"How does the United States compare to other democracies in the Western world?
The United States has a higher rate of violence, partly because large parts of the country were in a state of anarchy until the 20th century. People could not count on the government to protect them. The cliché of the cowboy movies is that the nearest sheriff is 200 miles away, so you have to protect yourself with your six-shooter. When governments did arrive, people were reluctant to hand over their self-protection. And because the first government in America was a democracy, people were able to impose their wishes. In European countries, first the government disarmed the people and exerted its control many hundred years ago. Then the people democratized the government, but by then the government had already established control."

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/12/23/why-america-is-more-violent-than-other-democracies

No disrespect to you TJ, but that's bull shit and sounds just like a Harvard proff would think. The U.S. constitution is the culmination of
English philosophy beginning with the enlightenment. It's the first time that rights of men were enumerated and that the government was set to ensure those rights. In the rest of Eurpoe, the government tells people what rights they have and those rights may change. My second amendment right is to protect me from the government, not Bonnie and Clyde.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
Yes, I'm aware of that. I looked it up quite some time ago.
The point I'm havering towards making is that, while the gunsters have made an eternally vigorous argument about the 2nd Amendment in terms of the great notion of freedom, the anti-gunsters have not. So, the gunsters have been able to cast their argument in terms of freedom, while they've been able to cast the anti-gunsters in terms of *limits' on freedom. And in so doing, the most blindingly important and obvious freedom of all - the freedom to remain alive - has somehow got sidelined. Such is the power of so much energetic propaganda over so many years.
I've always been somewhat bemused by that. It strikes me that if you don't have your life, you have no freedom whatsoever. You don't have the freedom even to pursue liberty or happiness. Guns - or more correctly, people who use guns against other people (yes, yes, yes - I'm aware that guns don't kill people, people do - please don't let me hear a huge bleating chorus about that one) - commonly and *very* frequently in the USA, remove that most basic of rights and freedoms - the right and freedom to have a life and use it.
Any human's 2nd Amendment right to carry a gun is worth fuck all if that human is dead. The founders of your nation took it for granted that the right to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' was so obviously the right that trumped all other rights that they didn't spell it out pedantically in your Constitution. That's my feeling. It really should go without saying.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

This is just more proof that the Second Amendment not only works, but that personal safety isn’t the responsibility of the government through police. It’s up to each individual to watch out for themselves and their families.

The only way to do so in modern society is by carrying a firearm.

Come on, lovemuffin. You must know that's tommyrot. Nearly all modern societies don't operate on that premise, but still operate much more successfully in terms of people's physical safety than does that of the USA.

Its two different mindsets.. in US they are still thinking the nearest sheriff is 200 miles away.. so everyone is a "Dirty Harry"..

according to this Harvard dude..
"How does the United States compare to other democracies in the Western world?
The United States has a higher rate of violence, partly because large parts of the country were in a state of anarchy until the 20th century. People could not count on the government to protect them. The cliché of the cowboy movies is that the nearest sheriff is 200 miles away, so you have to protect yourself with your six-shooter. When governments did arrive, people were reluctant to hand over their self-protection. And because the first government in America was a democracy, people were able to impose their wishes. In European countries, first the government disarmed the people and exerted its control many hundred years ago. Then the people democratized the government, but by then the government had already established control."

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/12/23/why-america-is-more-violent-than-other-democracies

No disrespect to you TJ, but that's bull shit and sounds just like a Harvard proff would think. The U.S. constitution is the culmination of
English philosophy beginning with the enlightenment. It's the first time that rights of men were enumerated and that the government was set to ensure those rights. In the rest of Eurpoe, the government tells people what rights they have and those rights may change. My second amendment right is to protect me from the government, not Bonnie and Clyde.

Well,.. I think he does have a good point.. The US govt evolved differently than those of Europe and those countries are much older so developed over a longer period.. Canada didnt become a country the way the US did so it too has the mindset of (for the majority of Canadians) of being more like the Brits and ok with gun control (& a lower crime rate).. Living in the US for a few years has shown me that Americans and Canadians are very, very different.. we are like night and day, no matter how some people try to say otherwise..

Dare i point out that your second amendment right has not protected you from the govt at all.. anyone that believes that has a false sense of security.. how many Waco's do you need before you figure that out? the govt has considerably more firepower than any of y'all..

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

This is just more proof that the Second Amendment not only works, but that personal safety isn’t the responsibility of the government through police. It’s up to each individual to watch out for themselves and their families.

The only way to do so in modern society is by carrying a firearm.

Come on, lovemuffin. You must know that's tommyrot. Nearly all modern societies don't operate on that premise, but still operate much more successfully in terms of people's physical safety than does that of the USA.

Its two different mindsets.. in US they are still thinking the nearest sheriff is 200 miles away.. so everyone is a "Dirty Harry"..

according to this Harvard dude..
"How does the United States compare to other democracies in the Western world?
The United States has a higher rate of violence, partly because large parts of the country were in a state of anarchy until the 20th century. People could not count on the government to protect them. The cliché of the cowboy movies is that the nearest sheriff is 200 miles away, so you have to protect yourself with your six-shooter. When governments did arrive, people were reluctant to hand over their self-protection. And because the first government in America was a democracy, people were able to impose their wishes. In European countries, first the government disarmed the people and exerted its control many hundred years ago. Then the people democratized the government, but by then the government had already established control."

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/12/23/why-america-is-more-violent-than-other-democracies

No disrespect to you TJ, but that's bull shit and sounds just like a Harvard proff would think. The U.S. constitution is the culmination of
English philosophy beginning with the enlightenment. It's the first time that rights of men were enumerated and that the government was set to ensure those rights. In the rest of Eurpoe, the government tells people what rights they have and those rights may change. My second amendment right is to protect me from the government, not Bonnie and Clyde.

Well,.. I think he does have a good point.. The US govt evolved differently than those of Europe and those countries are much older so developed over a longer period.. Canada didnt become a country the way the US did so it too has the mindset of (for the majority of Canadians) of being more like the Brits and ok with gun control (& a lower crime rate).. Living in the US for a few years has shown me that Americans and Canadians are very, very different.. we are like night and day, no matter how some people try to say otherwise..

Dare i point out that your second amendment right has not protected you from the govt at all.. anyone that believes that has a false sense of security.. how many Waco's do you need before you figure that out? the govt has considerably more firepower than any of y'all..

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Actually, Waco changed the government a lot. For instance, you didn't see the armed aggression against the rancher in Nevada.

quote:

Ann Coulter Attacks Gov. Nikki Haley As "An Immigrant" Who "Does Not Understand America's History"
Fact: Governor Haley Was Born In South Carolina

quote:

Fox's Ralph Peters: ISIS Is Trying To "Exactly What The American Left Is Trying To Do ... Destroy The Past"

quote:

Radio Host Michael Berry On Confederate Flag Controversy: If SC Shooter Were Muslim Would We "Outlaw The Koran?"

quote:

Right-Wing Media Respond By Lamenting The Flag's Removal

Fox's Guilfoyle: "Is The American Flag Next?" During the June 23 edition of Fox News' The Five, co-host Kimberly Guilfoyle responded to calls for the Confederate battle flag to be removed from South Carolina's Capitol grounds by asking whether the American flag would be next:

JUAN WILLIAMS: I would just say, quickly, look at the fact that it was put up 100 years after the Civil War. So it's not even people who are grieving the deaths of the soldiers, it's 100 years after where people who are seeking to defy Brown v. Board of Education, taking part in the massive resistance movement against integration, social integration, and political equality for blacks.

GUILFOYLE: Is the American flag next?

WILLIAMS: Oh, my God. I love the American flag! It symbolizes the country I love. Why would I --

GUILFOYLE: People can also try to suggest that this was -- symbolizes wars, oppression. I was having a thoughtful conversation the other night with Laura Ingraham and she was saying to me, you know, at one point is somebody going to say they're offended by this flag. We see people disrespect the American flag. [Fox News, The Five, 6/23/15]

Rush Limbaugh: Removing Confederate Flag Is About "Destroying The South." On the June 23 edition of his radio program, Rush Limbaugh claimed that liberals' true mission in removing the Confederate flag in South Carolina is "destroying the South as a political force." Limbaugh then predicted, "the next flag that will come under assault ... is the American flag":

LIMBAUGH: It's not going to stop with the Confederate flag, because it's not about the Confederate flag. It is about destroying the South as a political force. It's about isolating, targeting, and identifying the South as Dylann Roof.

[...]

The speed and rapidity with which the left is conducting this assault on all of these American traditions and institutions -- if you don't think the American flag is in their crosshairs down the road, you had better stop and reconsider. The American flag is what? It's the symbol of America. The left, what? Doesn't like this country very much and never has. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 6/23/15]

Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol: Liberals Are "Expunging History In A Frenzy Of Self-Righteousness." In a series of tweets on June 23, The Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol accused liberals of "expunging every trace of respect, recognition or acknowledgment of Americans who fought for the Confederacy."



[Twitter, 6/23/15, 6/23/15]

Bill O'Reilly: "Historical Context" Of Confederate Flag 'Represents Bravery.' Fox host Bill O'Reilly asserted that the Confederate flag "represents bravery" on the June 22 edition of his program telling Fox's Juan Williams that "it represents, to some, bravery in the Civil War because the Confederates fought hard" (emphasis added):

O'RILLY: You say the Confederate flag is a symbol of hate and you believe that.

JUAN WILLIAMS: That's the way I feel when I see it.

O'REILLY: Okay, okay. And absolutely 100 percent legitimate. For some other people who see it in a historical context --

WILLIAMS: What's the historical context?

O'REILLY: It represents bravery.

WILLIAMS: Oh get out of town.

O'REILLY: In war.

WILLIAMS: They put it up in anger when they were trying to mass resist the Civil Rights Movement in the 60's.

O'REILLY: You know as well as I do that it represents, to some, bravery in the Civil War because the Confederates fought hard.

[...]

But that's what it represents. You're right historically, but in their minds, that's what it represents. And in your mind it represents hate. So, and everybody should know what the two sides are believing. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 6/22/15]

Fox's Starnes: "The Cultural Cleansing Of The Southern States Begins." In a June 23 post on Fox Nation, Fox News Radio host Todd Starnes framed the South Carolina flag removal as "a full-fledged cultural cleansing of the Southern states":

A full-fledged cultural cleansing of the Southern states is underway as lawmakers debate whether to remove Confederate flags and rename schools and parks named after Confederate war heroes.

Republicans are leading the charge in South Carolina and Mississippi to remove the Confederate flag -- called a symbol of hate and racism.

Wal-Mart jumped on the band wagon, too - announcing they will remove all Confederate merchandise from its stores.

Has the Department of Homeland Security classified the Sons and Daughters of the Confederacy as right-wing hate groups, yet? [Fox Nation, 6/23/15]

quote:

NRA News Regular: Charleston Shooting Victims' Relatives Showed "Serious Weakness" By Forgiving Gunman
Tony Katz: Killing Members Of Gunman's Family "Far More Decent" Than Offering Forgiveness

quote:

O'Reilly On Fox News Being Criticized By The Media On Race: "You Want A War, You Got A War"

quote:


Fox's Erick Erickson Says Society's Acceptance of Transgender People Blinds It To "Evil" Of Charleston Killings

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


Plenty of guns in Somalia, Afghanistan, and IRAQ -- why not move there or hold those countries up as models of public safety.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

speaking then of being black---12 people were recently shot in Detroit, and though the south Carolina incident was more deadly, more people were shot in Detroit, and on the whole the coverage is crickets and theres certainly only limited local outrage and no national commiserating.

if instances like that do not give one pause to question the motivations of the media and the liberal race war mongers, I don't know what else would. its not about violence per se, its about furthering a racist white against black narrative.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

speaking then of being black---12 people were recently shot in Detroit, and though the south Carolina incident was more deadly, more people were shot in Detroit, and on the whole the coverage is crickets and theres certainly only limited local outrage and no national commiserating.

if instances like that do not give one pause to question the motivations of the media and the liberal race war mongers, I don't know what else would. its not about violence per se, its about furthering a racist white against black narrative.

hmm "the media"??? who do you consider "the media" to be? cuz yes, there were shootings in Detroit reported on in the Detroit Free Press..

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2015/06/20/detroit-shooting-basketball-court/29059409/

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2015/06/22/greektown-shootings-detroit/29099269/

and in USA Today..
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/20/shot-fatally-block-party-detroit/29060489/

oh, and Reuters..
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/21/us-usa-michigan-shooting-idUSKBN0P102D20150621

fuck, shootings in Detroit were even reported on in Omaha..
http://www.omaha.com/news/nation/people-shot-victim-dead-at-detroit-block-party/article_c72c6764-e056-5bce-b39b-14b3804866e4.html
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2015/06/23/detroit-shootings-weekend-guns/29139415/

There is a huge difference between the shootings in Detroit and what happened in SC.. SC was just one nutbar that apparently wanted to start a civil war or some such crazy thing.. what is going on in Detroit (& cities like that) is a systemic problem that needs change in policing and building better relations with the community to reduce the number of shootings.. Of course national, BIG media is gonna focus on the stories that are the most sensational cuz that's what hooks readers/viewers, really, they are giving people (readers, viewers) what they seem to want.. But that is why i dont watch or read national, BIG media, why get sucked into that (negative) vortex?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Attacking a block party in two different cities at the same time is just bad policing? If the shooters had been white, with exactly the same results it would almost push SC off the air.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


Plenty of guns in Somalia, Afghanistan, and IRAQ -- why not move there or hold those countries up as models of public safety.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Actually, Waco changed the government a lot. For instance, you didn't see the armed aggression against the rancher in Nevada.

maybe it would have been a very different story had the rancher been black..

if the govt wants to get you it will get you.. they will just be a bit more subtle about it & have a much better story of why they had to do it.. If they dont kill you outright, they will arrest you and call you a terrorist, and use "indefinite detention" without charging you or allowing you to have a lawyer or putting you on trial, without any phone calls to your family.. Right now Americans in the US arent subject to that only because Obama backed down on that particular clause (due to the election) after signing it into law in 2012 but the govt will try to slip it past y'all at some point in the future, possibly using some tragedy as reason to.. how will your constitution and amendments protect you then?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/26/7-ways-to-get-yourself-indefinitely-detained_n_1543288.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Well considering there have been more murders by guns in St. Louis from January to June of this year alone than in all of the UK last year.... Yep it works for them and every other gun sane country.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Attacking a block party in two different cities at the same time is just bad policing? If the shooters had been white, with exactly the same results it would almost push SC off the air.

You are exactly right, it doesnt fit the narrative

Former New Black Panthers leader calls for a race war, the media conveniently ignores him

The leftist hate group Southern Poverty Law Center (which has ties to Obama btw) has put out a hit list against certain conservative women, the media conveniently ignores it

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

FR

The thrust of the response to this incident seems to be not another push for gun control but an outbreak of Tweaks non-leathal ethnic cleansing with the usual suspects trying to wipe the nation clean of anything that smacks of southern heritage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

FR

The thrust of the response to this incident seems to be not another push for gun control but an outbreak of Tweaks non-leathal ethnic cleansing with the usual suspects trying to wipe the nation clean of anything that smacks of southern heritage.

Southern heritage can not be limited to a five year rebellion, nor the institution of slavery that the rebellion wanted to protect.