WATCH THIS MUCH OF WHAT HE SAYS I THINK MAY BE COMING MANY PEOPLE ARE TIRED OF OBAMATICS PLEASE WATCH EVEN THO HES SORT OF NUTTY http://www.break.com/usercontent/2009/7/the-white-rodney-king-814542.html
What do you all think
- Thread starter mike w
- Start date
Anyone see this - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090817/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_protesters_guns Now, I'm all in favor of having the right to bear arms, but is this going a little too far? Help me understand why this is a good idea.
Kerry & Kathy
Member #007
OK...I'll try.
There are MANY people who consider themselves to be part of the so called "Silent Majority"... They love the country that they grew up in and are very patriotic. They vote in every election. They call and write their congressmen and representatives. Many are combat veterans. Many are alive today because they used select fire (full auto) M16's to protect their lives and the lives of their buddies in combat. They know first hand the psychological, offensive and defensive power such weapons provide.
Now fast forward forty years... They see their country slipping through their fingers as more and more politicians fail to honor their campaign promises. They see illegal immigrants receiving equal or in some cases greater benefits than those of US citizens. They see more and more efforts to remove personal freedoms. Many of the same freedoms that these individuals fought to protect. They remember swearing an oath during military service induction to "protect the United States against all enemies...both foreign AND domestic..."
These individuals begin to ask...why was this oath specific to "domestic enemies"...unless a threat from within was anticipated? Then it begins to dawn on them that perhaps...just perhaps...the domestic enemies we were asked to fend off were...politicans who had overstepped their power. Politicians who needed to be reminded that their purpose in office is to represent the people and not their own personal benefit or agenda. Politicians who had become confident that the US public would remain unwilling to speak out against some of the most egregious and restrictive legislation being enacted on the American people....simply based on past history. History replete with examples of the silent majority...remaining silent. But times have now changed...dramatically. There is now MUCH vocal unrest and for some... they are preparing for the worst while continuing to hope that those in power will come to their senses.
Why do you think firearms and ammunition sales are at all time record levels since the election? Why are concealed carry permit applications at an all time high? Why are individuals from the entire spectrum of professions enrolling in tactical weapons training courses all over the country? Why have weapons training companies such as Front Sight grown into multi million dollar training faculties that have doubled in size just in the last year? Why have so many "tea parties" sprung up as a grass roots phenomenon? Why were returning service men labeled as potential "domestic terrorists" by the current administration? Why have town hall meetings become so tumultous... and in some cases violent? This goes far beyond the usual right vs left banter. This is now VERY serious. And those who do not recognize that fact will find themselves to be collateral damage if this situation does not improve...quickly.
It was obvious to me in November of 2008 that we were seeing the beginning of a sea change of public opinion toward politicians and their unwillingness to represent the wishes of the American Public. When 85% of the public does not support well fare for illegal immigrants and the politicians ignore those wishes...you know the shit is close to hitting the fan. I am 61 years old and have not had combat training for over 37 years...yet I decided to attend a tactical rifle course this past April with active duty SF personnel and current LEO / SWAT team members in Raleigh NC. This was done both as a refresher...but also to gage the mindset of current law enforcement officers and military personnel to what was taking place in this country. No one...that I spoke with was optimistic. ALL felt that our current political situation would not be rectified at the voting booth. It was encouraging and sobering hearing a SWAT team sniper from NJ tell me that his fellow officers had openly discussed and agreed that they would not follow orders to disarm the American citizens if ordered to do so by politicians. Two SF troupers...one home from Iraq and one from Afghanistan both stated they could not believe how much personal freedoms were being threatened by the current administration and that returning veterans were a force of which the administration SHOULD to be concerned. They were not happy campers...
The presence of AR15's and any other weapon openly displayed...but legally carried...is a simple, direct, and effective reminder to politicians that the American public is "mad as Hell and we're not going to take it anymore'... Those that are fearful of such displays...should be. Because it is a growing trend that is proportional to the level of onerous legislation and proposed regulations that are NOT in the American publics best interests.
Kerry
Funny - this sounds a lot like these words:
Recognize them?? Shame on you if you do not !
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
Recognize them?? Shame on you if you do not !
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
Ok, so are the voices FOR gun rights larger than the silent majority (IMO) that will pressure these politician's that "represent" the majority of the public to change laws to be able to carry such weapons either in public or at all.? Public opinion, to me, is shaped too much by the media and when I see the above story on the morning news and when they come back to the anchors, they are shaking their heads in disbelief 
Maybe the station should be written and reminded that their on air personalities are to be 'neutral' in their reporting. My thought on this report was the guy is asking for trouble for himself. What if some "radical" would have confronted him, would he shoot them? I would hope people that are allowed to carry those types of guns around are more responsible than that. I guess I sit on the fence on this one. I want to keep my 'typical' guns for hunting and target shooting, but don't see a need for ak-47 rifle's or their purpose in society.
I know they can be used for pretty much anything any other rifle can, however, does it really have the knock down power for a deer, elk, moose? How accurate is it? How many are really used for sport?
Maybe the station should be written and reminded that their on air personalities are to be 'neutral' in their reporting. My thought on this report was the guy is asking for trouble for himself. What if some "radical" would have confronted him, would he shoot them? I would hope people that are allowed to carry those types of guns around are more responsible than that. I guess I sit on the fence on this one. I want to keep my 'typical' guns for hunting and target shooting, but don't see a need for ak-47 rifle's or their purpose in society.I know they can be used for pretty much anything any other rifle can, however, does it really have the knock down power for a deer, elk, moose? How accurate is it? How many are really used for sport?
I use mine for sport and pleasure. They are surprisingly accurate. As I'm sure Kerry can attest to, with the right optics and some experience they are VERY accurate. A round plced in the right area will kill practically anything. That being said, the 5.56 mm or .223 wasn't intended for Moose or Elk. it's not the right tool. You don't use a wrench for a hammer. Well you might. 
I agreed that the guy carrying like this is a little over the top, but in that state it is legal and his right. I also agree that the news achors should be neutral. I think I should be rich, but the reality is that the anchors want to sway public opinion just as the gun toting guy did. The real reality that is starting to smack people in the face is the way the country is changing now and not for the better in my opinion.
I agreed that the guy carrying like this is a little over the top, but in that state it is legal and his right. I also agree that the news achors should be neutral. I think I should be rich, but the reality is that the anchors want to sway public opinion just as the gun toting guy did. The real reality that is starting to smack people in the face is the way the country is changing now and not for the better in my opinion.
Kerry & Kathy
Member #007
Tim,
I'm afraid you missed my point or I did not explain it properly. The carrying of these weapons in public was not making a point about gun rights and support for the second amendment. This public display was to make the point that if change in the direction politicians are headed cannot be effectively corrected at the ballot box...that the alternative is to make political corrections using the ammo box. It was a graphic reminder to our politicians that Thomas Jefferson predicted the need for force to counter repressive laws when he stated:
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."
Thomas Jefferson
BTW...How often do you think that quotation is taught in public school today?
The purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve the tools and the rights for public armed resistance...to discourage politicians from failing to understand who they were elected to serve.
It had NOTHING to do with hunting ot target shooting.
Kerry
I'm afraid you missed my point or I did not explain it properly. The carrying of these weapons in public was not making a point about gun rights and support for the second amendment. This public display was to make the point that if change in the direction politicians are headed cannot be effectively corrected at the ballot box...that the alternative is to make political corrections using the ammo box. It was a graphic reminder to our politicians that Thomas Jefferson predicted the need for force to counter repressive laws when he stated:
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."
Thomas Jefferson
BTW...How often do you think that quotation is taught in public school today?
The purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve the tools and the rights for public armed resistance...to discourage politicians from failing to understand who they were elected to serve.
It had NOTHING to do with hunting ot target shooting.
Kerry
I did not recognize that the words were a quote from Jefferson. But, to drive home my point form earlier rants - this quotation which has appeared on protester's signs has been given much coverage and is now according to "the media" attributed to the very radical RIGHT.
Go figure - 2009 and Thomas Jefferson is a RADICAL - WTF !
Kerry & Kathy
Member #007
Tim,
The Second Amendment was never about preserving hunting rights. However, having said that….the use of some rifles incorrectly referred to as "assault rifles" are common place in hunting environments. The AR15 being a prime example. I deer hunt and coyote hunt with an AR15 in 6.8 SPC. It has effectively replaced all of my “conventional” hunting rifles…because…it is a better rifle by nearly every judgment standard.
This is last years eight point buck taken with an AR15 in 6.8 SPC:
A good friend named Harrison Beene made a one shot kill on a moose last year in Colorado at 397 yds using an AR15 and 6.8 SPC cartridge. He also hunts prairie dogs with the same rifle using a .223 upper…primarily because it is the most accurate rifle for long range shots.
Are AR15’s accurate? Yes...more accurate than 99.99% of the conventional "sporting rifles" found at any gun store. A properly set up AR is easily capable of groups under .75" at 100 yds. Some can cut that group size in half.
This is a three shot group fired at 100 yds using the exact same AR shown above that I use for deer and coyote hunting. The group measures .450" and can be completely covered with a dime. (which measures .700" in diameter) How many hunters using "sporting rifles" can place three shots inside a dime fired from the length of a football field?
A second five shot group with a called flier (operator error) fired at 100 meters while practicing at the farm range, prior to competing at NC last April.
Using the same rifle with a longer barrel I successfully shot the tightest group fired in the 100 meter prone competition.
The improved technology of an AR15 with a rotating bolt and detachable upper receiver can put all but a very few conventional rifles to shame in accuracy, versatility, durability, weight, and caliber selection.
You can take an AR15 and in less than 1 minute...switch calibers from .22 rim fire to 9mm to .223 to 6.8 SPC to 6.5 Grendel to .50 Beowolf...even a .410 ga shotgun....all the way up to .50 cal BMG. One rifle... capable of converting to multiple calibers...sending a small 39 grain .22 bullet...all the way to a 690 grain .50 cal armor piercing round capable of stopping a large truck.
How many of your sporting rifles can do the same? When looking at versatility, accuracy and capabilities....It's not even close. It is why the AR15 and it's variants have become the #1 most common rifle in the US. It has surpassed "conventional sporting rifles" in popularity for hunting , target competition and self protection.
What the AR has become today is precisely how the Winchester Lever action 30-30 was viewed in the 1870's when many could not fathom the "need" to have rapid fire capabilities and a "high capacity" tubular magazine capable of holding multiple rounds. Senior military officers at the time openly stated that they felt such “excess” would result in poor marksmanship and wasted ammunition. They were perfectly happy with single shot black powder rifles. Sound familiar? Yet look how the 30-30 lever action was accepted by the general public as one of the most successful and popular hunting rifles in history. To this day they serve well for the purpose of self-defense.
The AR15 is the Winchester 30-30 of the 21st century. Imagine if today's liberal news media had been present when the Winchester Lever action was first introduced. It would have been vilified just as "assault rifles" and high capacity magazines are done today.
The best way to appreciate how good these “evil black assault rifles “ are….is to simply go shoot one.
Kerry
The Second Amendment was never about preserving hunting rights. However, having said that….the use of some rifles incorrectly referred to as "assault rifles" are common place in hunting environments. The AR15 being a prime example. I deer hunt and coyote hunt with an AR15 in 6.8 SPC. It has effectively replaced all of my “conventional” hunting rifles…because…it is a better rifle by nearly every judgment standard.
This is last years eight point buck taken with an AR15 in 6.8 SPC:
A good friend named Harrison Beene made a one shot kill on a moose last year in Colorado at 397 yds using an AR15 and 6.8 SPC cartridge. He also hunts prairie dogs with the same rifle using a .223 upper…primarily because it is the most accurate rifle for long range shots.
Are AR15’s accurate? Yes...more accurate than 99.99% of the conventional "sporting rifles" found at any gun store. A properly set up AR is easily capable of groups under .75" at 100 yds. Some can cut that group size in half.
This is a three shot group fired at 100 yds using the exact same AR shown above that I use for deer and coyote hunting. The group measures .450" and can be completely covered with a dime. (which measures .700" in diameter) How many hunters using "sporting rifles" can place three shots inside a dime fired from the length of a football field?
A second five shot group with a called flier (operator error) fired at 100 meters while practicing at the farm range, prior to competing at NC last April.
Using the same rifle with a longer barrel I successfully shot the tightest group fired in the 100 meter prone competition.
The improved technology of an AR15 with a rotating bolt and detachable upper receiver can put all but a very few conventional rifles to shame in accuracy, versatility, durability, weight, and caliber selection.
You can take an AR15 and in less than 1 minute...switch calibers from .22 rim fire to 9mm to .223 to 6.8 SPC to 6.5 Grendel to .50 Beowolf...even a .410 ga shotgun....all the way up to .50 cal BMG. One rifle... capable of converting to multiple calibers...sending a small 39 grain .22 bullet...all the way to a 690 grain .50 cal armor piercing round capable of stopping a large truck.
How many of your sporting rifles can do the same? When looking at versatility, accuracy and capabilities....It's not even close. It is why the AR15 and it's variants have become the #1 most common rifle in the US. It has surpassed "conventional sporting rifles" in popularity for hunting , target competition and self protection.
What the AR has become today is precisely how the Winchester Lever action 30-30 was viewed in the 1870's when many could not fathom the "need" to have rapid fire capabilities and a "high capacity" tubular magazine capable of holding multiple rounds. Senior military officers at the time openly stated that they felt such “excess” would result in poor marksmanship and wasted ammunition. They were perfectly happy with single shot black powder rifles. Sound familiar? Yet look how the 30-30 lever action was accepted by the general public as one of the most successful and popular hunting rifles in history. To this day they serve well for the purpose of self-defense.
The AR15 is the Winchester 30-30 of the 21st century. Imagine if today's liberal news media had been present when the Winchester Lever action was first introduced. It would have been vilified just as "assault rifles" and high capacity magazines are done today.
The best way to appreciate how good these “evil black assault rifles “ are….is to simply go shoot one.
Kerry
Ok, 2nd amendment pertains to the right to keep and bear arms right? I am quite sure that in 1791 (when it was ratified) the writers had no idea nor thought about accuracy of a rifle at 100 yards, heck, the Roosevelt dime didn't exist then 
My point is, the purpose, I thought, was to protect a person's right to possess a firearm to defend themselves and that it could not be challenged(although, we have seen different). So, I understand your point completely, I don't think I missed it, I just went off on a tangent as I am prone to do. My point was I know that if you give an inch a mile will be taken, is this the reason for the need to take a hard stance on protecting the right to own an AR or AK? Make me understand the need for owning a rifle like this is my point. And, now that I think about it more, I guess in my mind I've answered my own question - your need to own an AR is like my need to own a 12 ga. I guess.
Back to the original story, if this was an open threat towards the leader of our country, do you not see something wrong with that? Maybe a march on Washington or a very large protest could accomplish the same thing without the threat on our leader? And, what if that does happen, a civil war is certain. Are you (anyone I mean) willing and ABLE to protect your family by whatever means necessary?
To anyone not participating in this discussion OR even if you are and feel this is a topic best left OFF a car forum, please speak up and I will cease my questions and discussion on this topic. I appreciate the candor and responses Kerry is providing. Isn't it nice to have a discussion without getting PO'd at an opposing opinion?
My point is, the purpose, I thought, was to protect a person's right to possess a firearm to defend themselves and that it could not be challenged(although, we have seen different). So, I understand your point completely, I don't think I missed it, I just went off on a tangent as I am prone to do. My point was I know that if you give an inch a mile will be taken, is this the reason for the need to take a hard stance on protecting the right to own an AR or AK? Make me understand the need for owning a rifle like this is my point. And, now that I think about it more, I guess in my mind I've answered my own question - your need to own an AR is like my need to own a 12 ga. I guess.Back to the original story, if this was an open threat towards the leader of our country, do you not see something wrong with that? Maybe a march on Washington or a very large protest could accomplish the same thing without the threat on our leader? And, what if that does happen, a civil war is certain. Are you (anyone I mean) willing and ABLE to protect your family by whatever means necessary?
To anyone not participating in this discussion OR even if you are and feel this is a topic best left OFF a car forum, please speak up and I will cease my questions and discussion on this topic. I appreciate the candor and responses Kerry is providing. Isn't it nice to have a discussion without getting PO'd at an opposing opinion?
Kerry & Kathy
Member #007
Tim,
The second amendment as ratified, WAS designed for personal protection...from the federal government. Not from bad guys looking to heist your big screen TV or threaten your safety. It was to protect the citizens from government burocrats...including the President...from heisting our constitutional freedoms. Thomas Jefferson certainly didn't exclude the office of the president...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance?
...why should we?
To answer your question more directly... it is the head of the government who should be the focal point of any citizen's efforts to stop unconstitutional power grabs by politicians. It is our responsibility as citizens to remind all... including the President that there are consequences to their actions when they are unconstitutional. The threat of potential violence or civil war is a necessary part of that "reminder"...otherwise such threats have no effectiveness. And yes...in my view such threats are appropriate to the seriousness of government's growing willingness to ignore the will of the people.
Any yes...there are MANY in this country who you pass every day on the street who are armed, trained and willing to use lethal force to protect their families during any social unrest. They are another very large segment of the silent majority who go about their business every day without fanfare or drawing attention to themselves and the preparations they have made for a "worst case" scenario.
Yesterday I spoke with a retired law enforcement officer who had served as both a police officer, Police Chief, Deputy Sheriff and Federal Marshall. He is now in his early 70's. He was buying a top of the line, $3700 Third Generation Night Vision Scope for one of his AR15's. He lives in rural St Francois County and is preparing for what he believes will be gangs from metropolitan St. Louis who will venture into rural and semi rural areas looking for easy targets when...or if...we are all left to fend for ourselves. He is a very intelligent and level headed individual. Yet in his mind it is not a question of if civil war may occur...but when. I would like to remain more positive and hope that we never reach that threshold. But the likelihood of such a threat is not just for the tin foil hat crowd. Many well trained and experienced people are making serious preparations for the worst. I relayed some of that information to you the other night at Sonic.
Someone wiser than me once said..."Hope for the best...but prepare for the worst".
In today's political environment, that is sound advice.
Kerry
The second amendment as ratified, WAS designed for personal protection...from the federal government. Not from bad guys looking to heist your big screen TV or threaten your safety. It was to protect the citizens from government burocrats...including the President...from heisting our constitutional freedoms. Thomas Jefferson certainly didn't exclude the office of the president...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance?
...why should we?
To answer your question more directly... it is the head of the government who should be the focal point of any citizen's efforts to stop unconstitutional power grabs by politicians. It is our responsibility as citizens to remind all... including the President that there are consequences to their actions when they are unconstitutional. The threat of potential violence or civil war is a necessary part of that "reminder"...otherwise such threats have no effectiveness. And yes...in my view such threats are appropriate to the seriousness of government's growing willingness to ignore the will of the people.
Any yes...there are MANY in this country who you pass every day on the street who are armed, trained and willing to use lethal force to protect their families during any social unrest. They are another very large segment of the silent majority who go about their business every day without fanfare or drawing attention to themselves and the preparations they have made for a "worst case" scenario.
Yesterday I spoke with a retired law enforcement officer who had served as both a police officer, Police Chief, Deputy Sheriff and Federal Marshall. He is now in his early 70's. He was buying a top of the line, $3700 Third Generation Night Vision Scope for one of his AR15's. He lives in rural St Francois County and is preparing for what he believes will be gangs from metropolitan St. Louis who will venture into rural and semi rural areas looking for easy targets when...or if...we are all left to fend for ourselves. He is a very intelligent and level headed individual. Yet in his mind it is not a question of if civil war may occur...but when. I would like to remain more positive and hope that we never reach that threshold. But the likelihood of such a threat is not just for the tin foil hat crowd. Many well trained and experienced people are making serious preparations for the worst. I relayed some of that information to you the other night at Sonic.
Someone wiser than me once said..."Hope for the best...but prepare for the worst".
In today's political environment, that is sound advice.
Kerry
Hmmmm. So would violence like Timothy McVeigh produced be acceptable? I believe a portion of the Thomas Jefferson speech was attached to his shirt, was it not? Killing/murdering innocent people is NOT the way to get a point across, is it?.....
Kerry & Kathy
Member #007
Absolutely not...!!
It is the "threat of defensive violence" while protecting innocent lives against government offensive actions that is intended.
The Waco attack by BATF is a prime example where defensive use of lethal force would be warranted. In this case the government attacked private citizens on private property under false accusations of child abuse...then set fire to the building killing the very children they falsely contended they were there to "rescue".
The shooting and killing of an unarmed Vicky Weaver while she held her baby in the doorway of her home is another example too often overlooked.
The only innocents murdered in both these cases were at the hands of government directed forces.
Timothy McVeigh was an abomination and deserved everything he got, for his actions...and more.
Kerry
I'll chime in. Here's my take.
First, I don't disagree with what was said so far in this thread. But, in my mind strapping a gun to your hip, or wearing a rifle on your shoulder to a well covered protest was - a silly stunt. Legal? Yes, but useless and ultimately silly. Remember the story in the news a few weeks ago where in some US city it was legal to walk around naked? And then somebody did? OMG - too funny.
I use that particular example because now - tonight - the media has taken this story to the top of their charts. The current talking point - They now have all the ammunition they need to link the radical right with the crazy birthers, the militia nuts, the conspirisery nuts (Waco / 911 / OK City), the self defense nuts, the gun hoarders, the ammo hoarders, the home bomb makers, the health care protestors, the tea baggers, the astoturfers, the free marketers, the KKK, the Nazis, the global warming deniers, the holocaust deniers, UFO hunters, bigfoot hunters, all hunters, meat eaters, cigarette smokers, and guys that drive cars that get poor gas mileage. The media has taken them all (right, wrong or otherwise), called them all 100% certifiably crazy and tossed them into the same stinky stew. A very clever flanking move that we keep falling right into. Like how Lucy always graciously volunteers to hold the football for Charlie Brown (that us) and old Charlie takes his run and she pulls the ball away at the last second. He never did get that kick off. He fell for it every single time.
Have you ever met someone who is actually, clinically insane? I have. They will swear to the death that they are absolutely fine. That they are clear-headed and totally lucent. They will swear that they were completely justified when the bludgeoned their entire family with a tire iron and ate their gonads afterwords. You will never be able to tell him he is not crazy - ever. And THAT is the brush that they are painting the right with - this very minute. Very clever.
I know I go off on this tangent all the time - but it's all media manipulation of the highest order - and this guy with the rifle on his shoulder bought the full day pass, got a free t-shirt and a media rim job, and IRS audit for the pleasure. If you disagree with this liberal agenda you are attacked in a way that is almost impossible to defend. The louder you scream at a protest the crazier you will be cast. When more and more people show up at meetings legally armed to the teeth - you will all be called terrorists and crazy - and carted off to jail one at a time.
The comments Kerry made are a sad and dark commentary. It reminds me of the man that says the light in the tunnel is a train coming and takes a defensive position - good for him. The media on the other hand are the one's running towards that light (calling you crazy if YOU don't run too). And when that light turns out to be a train - as what happens in actual socialists regimes - the freedom of speech is the FIRST freedom to be denied. What's that old saying? The 2nd amendment is there just in case somebody forgets about the 1st amendment.
First, I don't disagree with what was said so far in this thread. But, in my mind strapping a gun to your hip, or wearing a rifle on your shoulder to a well covered protest was - a silly stunt. Legal? Yes, but useless and ultimately silly. Remember the story in the news a few weeks ago where in some US city it was legal to walk around naked? And then somebody did? OMG - too funny.
I use that particular example because now - tonight - the media has taken this story to the top of their charts. The current talking point - They now have all the ammunition they need to link the radical right with the crazy birthers, the militia nuts, the conspirisery nuts (Waco / 911 / OK City), the self defense nuts, the gun hoarders, the ammo hoarders, the home bomb makers, the health care protestors, the tea baggers, the astoturfers, the free marketers, the KKK, the Nazis, the global warming deniers, the holocaust deniers, UFO hunters, bigfoot hunters, all hunters, meat eaters, cigarette smokers, and guys that drive cars that get poor gas mileage. The media has taken them all (right, wrong or otherwise), called them all 100% certifiably crazy and tossed them into the same stinky stew. A very clever flanking move that we keep falling right into. Like how Lucy always graciously volunteers to hold the football for Charlie Brown (that us) and old Charlie takes his run and she pulls the ball away at the last second. He never did get that kick off. He fell for it every single time.
Have you ever met someone who is actually, clinically insane? I have. They will swear to the death that they are absolutely fine. That they are clear-headed and totally lucent. They will swear that they were completely justified when the bludgeoned their entire family with a tire iron and ate their gonads afterwords. You will never be able to tell him he is not crazy - ever. And THAT is the brush that they are painting the right with - this very minute. Very clever.
I know I go off on this tangent all the time - but it's all media manipulation of the highest order - and this guy with the rifle on his shoulder bought the full day pass, got a free t-shirt and a media rim job, and IRS audit for the pleasure. If you disagree with this liberal agenda you are attacked in a way that is almost impossible to defend. The louder you scream at a protest the crazier you will be cast. When more and more people show up at meetings legally armed to the teeth - you will all be called terrorists and crazy - and carted off to jail one at a time.
The comments Kerry made are a sad and dark commentary. It reminds me of the man that says the light in the tunnel is a train coming and takes a defensive position - good for him. The media on the other hand are the one's running towards that light (calling you crazy if YOU don't run too). And when that light turns out to be a train - as what happens in actual socialists regimes - the freedom of speech is the FIRST freedom to be denied. What's that old saying? The 2nd amendment is there just in case somebody forgets about the 1st amendment.
Kerry, if it's a threat and only a threat, don't you think those being threatened know that too and will push to the brink? Or worse, one of the crazy's decides to take matters in to their own hands......
Does anyone know what the current house vote is on the healtcare bill?
Does anyone know what the current house vote is on the healtcare bill?
Kerry & Kathy
Member #007
I think it's a matter of numbers....and the level of threat.
If you are only one voice you get painted as a loon as Mark suggests. However, at some point the numbers reach a threshold and it becomes a "movement"... to quote Arlo Guthrie... but we are not there ...yet.
I think the grass roots efforts involving increasing vocal outbursts at town hall meetings combined with other obvious rebellious displays toward the government are also threats in their own right and will reach a tipping point. When that happens the decision makers in Washington have to decide...do we stick to our agenda and risk a social uprising...or do we back off. I think rational men will back off. The question is...are these rational men? Based on current actions, an argument could be made that they are ideologues and will continue at any price. I hope that is not the case... for several reasons.
As radical as the changes to our country have been over the past five months...I am concerned that those in charge will not change unless their own Democratic support forces them to back off. If the moderate and conservative Democrats fail to support these socialist changes and Obama loses his support, perhaps violence could be averted.
Kerry
I think you are being polite to a fault - that you are under-estimating the far left. They have seized and consolidated power in a fashion that we have not seen since the early 1930s. They have the ability to crush opposition within their own party on any number of wide reaching and very effective levels. They can easily manipulate "their message", the markets, the media and all of their outcomes. These guys are good - real good. As good as you are with a rifle, they are as skilled with a computer. Another old saying - The pen is mightier than the sword.
I know you are not the kind of guy to let your guard down, but there are many millions of sheep that will.
Last edited:
Here's another example of manipulation.
In the media tonight - I know "the media". Reports that insurance companies (evil health insurance companies) will be raising the co-pays from the standard current 20% to 35% with the gracious blessing of the legislature. All the while, administration officials have been and had handled advertising for various high power healthcare lobbying groups and pharma. Now - take a few minutes and just think about that.
Who are they players?
What is the message?
How was it twisted?
What are the effects of the twisting?
Who will gain the reward in the end?
These guys are masters - check it out.
They strong arm the insurance companies for money and political connections, then brand them as evil, then give them permission to rape the public - and then they'll put them out of business with gov't care - and the message will be that for a few trillion dollars they saved us from THEM ! The whole time they will profit from every single step. And, in a move that is a classic Houdini diversion - they'll have us looking at Sarah Palin's wacky death panel comments, and guys with rifle's slung on their shoulders, making them out as full-blown loons (too easy). In the end, we'll have their gov't healthcare, fewer doctors, fewer hospitals, bigger bills, more taxes, and no choice in the matter. They'll have more power and control - and money. It's a bases-loaded, walk-off home run.
They manipulated and twisted the market, the message, the players, the public (the easiest part) and eventually the outcome to solidify their own position leaving the public on the outside looking in. They'll do it without firing a shot and with the blessing of the entire country. We'll beg for their help and they'll gladly provide it.
Master - real Masters at this game.
BTW - you do have to agree with me. It doesn't matter. It's going to happen as sure as the sun will rise in the morning. I know it's sounds like some sort of wacky theory - I know. But learned men just a few hundred years ago knew that the earth was flat, and had no clue about such insane ideas like gravity - and they survived - that is as long as they didn't speak about such things.
In the media tonight - I know "the media". Reports that insurance companies (evil health insurance companies) will be raising the co-pays from the standard current 20% to 35% with the gracious blessing of the legislature. All the while, administration officials have been and had handled advertising for various high power healthcare lobbying groups and pharma. Now - take a few minutes and just think about that.
Who are they players?
What is the message?
How was it twisted?
What are the effects of the twisting?
Who will gain the reward in the end?
These guys are masters - check it out.
They strong arm the insurance companies for money and political connections, then brand them as evil, then give them permission to rape the public - and then they'll put them out of business with gov't care - and the message will be that for a few trillion dollars they saved us from THEM ! The whole time they will profit from every single step. And, in a move that is a classic Houdini diversion - they'll have us looking at Sarah Palin's wacky death panel comments, and guys with rifle's slung on their shoulders, making them out as full-blown loons (too easy). In the end, we'll have their gov't healthcare, fewer doctors, fewer hospitals, bigger bills, more taxes, and no choice in the matter. They'll have more power and control - and money. It's a bases-loaded, walk-off home run.
They manipulated and twisted the market, the message, the players, the public (the easiest part) and eventually the outcome to solidify their own position leaving the public on the outside looking in. They'll do it without firing a shot and with the blessing of the entire country. We'll beg for their help and they'll gladly provide it.
Master - real Masters at this game.
BTW - you do have to agree with me. It doesn't matter. It's going to happen as sure as the sun will rise in the morning. I know it's sounds like some sort of wacky theory - I know. But learned men just a few hundred years ago knew that the earth was flat, and had no clue about such insane ideas like gravity - and they survived - that is as long as they didn't speak about such things.
Last edited:
I like your passion, however, I don't think the public is as dumb as you make them out to be. Sure, I am, but I don't speak for the majority. The reason america voted for CHANGE is due to the younger, ill informed and new in the political arena people voted this time. Why were they compelled to vote this time? Media? Well, then if Media is running the country, why are we targeting those in Washington? Something to think about.
Again, thanks for the clean discussion - and look at that, we're still talking to each other
Again, thanks for the clean discussion - and look at that, we're still talking to each other
Kerry & Kathy
Member #007
Did you notice that MSNBC reported on the BLACK individual who was carrying the AR15 over his shoulder at the town hall meeting in Arizona...but...did NOT show his FACE...
They then had the audacity to twist the story line to suggest that WHITE extremists were taking assault rifles to these town hall meetings....!!!
All to stir up racial conflict...when there was none...!!!
They obscured the FACTS to support an untrue agenda.
Imagine if Fox News had manipulate a story in a similar fashion...
Tim, I think you have a valid point here.
Perhaps it IS the heavily biased media we should be going after. What happened to accurate and objective reporting?
Actually I don't have a problem with any reporting seemingly supporting a liberal or conservative view...as long as what they report is TRUE and factual. AND...as long as they do not selectively report only one side of a story. Keep it balanced and let the public decide. Don't editorialize in an effort to tell me what I "should" think.
When the truth is trampled to support an agenda...I have a problem.
Kerry
They then had the audacity to twist the story line to suggest that WHITE extremists were taking assault rifles to these town hall meetings....!!!
All to stir up racial conflict...when there was none...!!!
They obscured the FACTS to support an untrue agenda.
Imagine if Fox News had manipulate a story in a similar fashion...
Tim, I think you have a valid point here.
Perhaps it IS the heavily biased media we should be going after. What happened to accurate and objective reporting?
Actually I don't have a problem with any reporting seemingly supporting a liberal or conservative view...as long as what they report is TRUE and factual. AND...as long as they do not selectively report only one side of a story. Keep it balanced and let the public decide. Don't editorialize in an effort to tell me what I "should" think.
When the truth is trampled to support an agenda...I have a problem.
Kerry