Jump to content

Tea Party/GOP crazies lining up to out-stupid each other. "Gather your armies" agains the IRS.


Recommended Posts

Are you serious? :mellow:

Dead serious. Why wouldn't I be? How could they mean assault rifles if they had never even heard of an assault rifle.

You can't have it both ways. You cannot say " this is a living document and can be changed to suit the times by allowing assault rifles" and then say " it cannot be changed to take away assault rifles" You cannot do that.

So grab your flintlocks, ladies, the British are a coming!!

And they certainly never intended those arms to be raised against their own government.

We have a well armed militia already, BTW, why don't the folks sign up for the ones we have? The national guard, the coast guard....

And as I have said before, you can arm yourself with a pointy stick or a rock,but some guys want a bazooka.

Maybe they should check into male enhancement surgery to cure their pain. I dunno.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Dead serious. Why wouldn't I be? How could they mean assault rifles if they had never even heard of an assault rifle.

You can't have it both ways. You cannot say " this is a living document and can be changed to suit the times by allowing assault rifles" and then say " it cannot be changed to take away assault rifles" You cannot do that.

So grab your flintlocks, ladies, the British are a coming!!

And they certainly never intended those arms to be raised against their own government.

We have a well armed militia already, BTW, why don't the folks sign up for the ones we have? The national guard, the coast guard....

And as I have said before, you can arm yourself with a pointy stick or a rock,but some guys want a bazooka.

Maybe they should check into male enhancement surgery to cure their pain. I dunno.

I've used this argument before and certain people get heated over you just mentioning it.

Then they usually want to argue what the Founding Fathers meant. How do they know what the Founding Fathers would have wanted? That was an entirely different time and situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dead serious. Why wouldn't I be? How could they mean assault rifles if they had never even heard of an assault rifle.

You can't have it both ways. You cannot say " this is a living document and can be changed to suit the times by allowing assault rifles" and then say " it cannot be changed to take away assault rifles" You cannot do that.

So grab your flintlocks, ladies, the British are a coming!!

Wrong! The founders clearly meant that we should arm ourselves to the teeth with anything we so choose and that no daggum gubment will tell us otherwise! :angry:

I prefer to pay tribute to the 2nd and founders by arming myself with a LGM-30 Minuteman III Intercontinental ballistic missile.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've used this argument before and certain people get heated over you just mentioning it.

Then they usually want to argue what the Founding Fathers meant. How do they know what the Founding Fathers would have wanted? That was an entirely different time and situation.

Because they want it to mean what benefits them. To me it's a no brainer. Just read it and tell me where it mentions someone's right to own ten assault rifles, something those founders had never even heard of.

Some people could say to them a tank is an arm. So now we gotta let people drive tanks.

And believe me, I don't care who owns guns and I believe all the laws in the world won't prevent a gun crime.

I just get tired of them arguing that their rights to carry guns supercedes other peoples rights that don't want them in their business.

My bank has a clear sign that does not allow them concealed or otherwise and I agree with them. If someone robs a bank when I'm there, the last thing I want is some yahoo starting a gunfight and getting 7 people killed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong! The founders clearly meant that we should arm ourselves to the teeth with anything we so choose and that no daggum gubment will tell us otherwise! :angry:

I prefer to pay tribute to the 2nd and founders by arming myself with a LGM-30 Minuteman III Intercontinental ballistic missile.

Your passion for arms and freedom and the poetic way with which you convey it have made me a changed man.

How much for that Titan II in the window?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I said " INTENDED".. look it up.

it

1    /ɪt/ Show Spelled [it] Show IPA pronoun, nominative it, possessive its or ( Obsolete or Dialect ) it, objective it; plural nominative they, possessive their or theirs, objective them; noun

–pronoun

1.

(used to represent an inanimate thing understood, previously mentioned, about to be mentioned, or present in the immediate context): It has whitewall tires and red upholstery. You can't tell a book by its cover.

2.

(used to represent a person or animal understood, previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned whose gender is unknown or disregarded): It was the largest ever caught off the Florida coast. Who was it? It was John. The horse had its saddle on.

3.

(used to represent a group understood or previously mentioned): The judge told the jury it must decide two issues.

4.

(used to represent a concept or abstract idea understood or previously stated): It all started with Adam and Eve. He has been taught to believe it all his life.

5.

(used to represent an action or activity understood, previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned): Since you don't like it, you don't have to go skiing.

6.

(used as the impersonal subject of the verb to be, esp. to refer to time, distance, or the weather): It is six o'clock. It is five miles to town. It was foggy.

7.

(used in statements expressing an action, condition, fact, circumstance, or situation without reference to an agent): If it weren't for Edna, I wouldn't go.

8.

(used in referring to something as the origin or cause of pain, pleasure, etc.): Where does it hurt? It looks bad for the candidate.

9.

(used in referring to a source not specifically named or described): It is said that love is blind.

10.

(used in referring to the general state of affairs; circumstances, fate, or life in general): How's it going with you?

11.

(used as an anticipatory subject or object to make a sentence more eloquent or suspenseful or to shift emphasis): It is necessary that you do your duty. It was a gun that he was carrying.

12.

Informal . (used instead of the pronoun its before a gerund): It having rained for only one hour didn't help the crops.

Now what? :huh:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dead serious. Why wouldn't I be? How could they mean assault rifles if they had never even heard of an assault rifle.

You can't have it both ways. You cannot say " this is a living document and can be changed to suit the times by allowing assault rifles" and then say " it cannot be changed to take away assault rifles" You cannot do that.

So grab your flintlocks, ladies, the British are a coming!!

And they certainly never intended those arms to be raised against their own government.

We have a well armed militia already, BTW, why don't the folks sign up for the ones we have? The national guard, the coast guard....

And as I have said before, you can arm yourself with a pointy stick or a rock,but some guys want a bazooka.

Maybe they should check into male enhancement surgery to cure their pain. I dunno.

You're micromanaging the argument.

The logical extension of your premise is to the 1st Amendment. If you are correct, "press" would include only pen and paper and the printing press (or chisel and rock, for the industrious press corps). But what is inalterable -- what must remain inviolate -- is "press," not the instrumentations of the press.

Similarly, what remains inviolate in the 2nd Amendment is "arms," not "flintlocks." And what "arms" means is best deduced from looking at what the Founders said about it, as the recent Heller decision makes very clear, and their well-stated analysis is it refers to personal arms. So one need neither restrict the press to movable type nor the 2nd Amendment to muskets, any more than one must allow all press members into the Presidential bully pulpit or provide them free airtime through the FCC for "equal time" or give the right to hold ICBMs to citizens. The Amendments respectively mean what they mean and no more or less. It is a fallacy to suggest that the 2nd Amendment applies only to muskets or, alternatively, the Constitution may be changed by whim of the masses. Specifically, it's a false dichotomy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it

1    /ɪt/ Show Spelled [it] Show IPA pronoun, nominative it, possessive its or ( Obsolete or Dialect ) it, objective it; plural nominative they, possessive their or theirs, objective them; noun

–pronoun

1.

(used to represent an inanimate thing understood, previously mentioned, about to be mentioned, or present in the immediate context): It has whitewall tires and red upholstery. You can't tell a book by its cover.

2.

(used to represent a person or animal understood, previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned whose gender is unknown or disregarded): It was the largest ever caught off the Florida coast. Who was it? It was John. The horse had its saddle on.

3.

(used to represent a group understood or previously mentioned): The judge told the jury it must decide two issues.

4.

(used to represent a concept or abstract idea understood or previously stated): It all started with Adam and Eve. He has been taught to believe it all his life.

5.

(used to represent an action or activity understood, previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned): Since you don't like it, you don't have to go skiing.

6.

(used as the impersonal subject of the verb to be, esp. to refer to time, distance, or the weather): It is six o'clock. It is five miles to town. It was foggy.

7.

(used in statements expressing an action, condition, fact, circumstance, or situation without reference to an agent): If it weren't for Edna, I wouldn't go.

8.

(used in referring to something as the origin or cause of pain, pleasure, etc.): Where does it hurt? It looks bad for the candidate.

9.

(used in referring to a source not specifically named or described): It is said that love is blind.

10.

(used in referring to the general state of affairs; circumstances, fate, or life in general): How's it going with you?

11.

(used as an anticipatory subject or object to make a sentence more eloquent or suspenseful or to shift emphasis): It is necessary that you do your duty. It was a gun that he was carrying.

12.

Informal . (used instead of the pronoun its before a gerund): It having rained for only one hour didn't help the crops.

Now what? :huh:

You have clearly won the battle for me with the very definition I meant:

(used to represent a person or animal understood, previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned whose gender is unknown or disregarded): It was the largest ever caught off the Florida coast. Who was it? It was John. The horse had its saddle on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You should probably know that those armed people you saw at the rallies, they weren't ANYWHERE near the President. They were at a public rally on public grounds, where it's perfectly legal to carry a firearm. The President has special "national security" rules that would have allowed any secret service agent to disarm anyone they deem necessary.

Did any of those gun carrying crazies actually carry their gun & say Obama was the Antichrist?

Depends on the state. I don't think that this is legal in GA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? They meant firearms? Were they just too lazy to write out firearms? If they meant firearms, surely they meant the firearms they knew. Carry a flintlock lately, Mr unfettered?

But as I say, I want you to make your point, for the betterment of ALL our understanding. Please. go on up int a courtroom with your six shooter twirling on your trigger finger. PLEASE. As they take you down and taze you raining blows upon your head, PLEASE tell them your rights are being infringed. In a couple of years, when you get out of jail, just to prove how you showed them you'll not be fettered, do it again. See how much your anger, arrogance and selfishness has changed the common sense ways of doing things.

You are out there man. Even most gun owners I know admit there are well respected limits. You, you just want it to be all about you.Ben ####in' franklin.

But you never answered me. Do you believe your individual rights over rule a business owners rights if he doesn't want your gun in his establishment? How do you suppose your rights are above his?

"Arms" is synonymous with the lexicon of the day for what you refer to as "firearms" and yes, I fired a muzzleloader just last week. And quite well. You ought to try it, it has quite a kick.

You have a great deal of talent. You are an accomplished artist, you communicate well and you have a quick and easy wit. As I have intimated before, it is not my intent to impune you or belittle your sense of morality. I certainly do not wish to enter your home, or anywhere else for that matter, with a firearm or anything else that may offend you or anyone else that owns such an establishment.

But you have a chip on your shoulder and when I attempt to communicate with you directly on the merits of your accusations, the dialouge descinds into your last couple of responses.

I am horrified that our society has looked the other way and allowed the servants to tell the master what he can and cannot do regarding freedom. It is manifested in these infringements to the 2nd amendment. I know I have made that point.

You accuse me of being angry, arrogant and selfish. Go back and reread our correspondance.

Can you be truly honest and hold that to be true?

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Arms" is synonymous with the lexicon of the day for what you refer to as "firearms" and yes, I fired a muzzleloader just last week. And quite well. You ought to try it, it has quite a kick.

You have a great deal of talent. You are an accomplished artist, you communicate well and you have a quick and easy wit. As I have intimated before, it is not my intent to impune you or belittle your sense of morality. I certainly do not wish to enter your home, or anywhere else for that matter, with a firearm or anything else that may offend you or anyone else that owns such an establishment.

But you have a chip on your shoulder and when I attempt to communicate with you directly on the merits of your accusations, the dialouge descinds into your last couple of responses.

I am horrified that our society has looked the other way and allowed the servants to tell the master what he can and cannot do regarding freedom. It is manifested in these infringements to the 2nd amendment. I know I have made that point.

You accuse me of being angry, arrogant and selfish. Go back and reread our correspondance.

Can you be truly honest and hold that to be true?

:angry:

J/K:lol:

As for the arrogance part, I feel a lot of people are arrogant when it comes to their gun rights. Many think their right to carry supercedes a business owner who doesn't want anyone carrying in his business. I feel that business owners rights should come first. I don't see that as stepping on someones liberty as much as it gives them a choice to shop there or not.It's arrogant to think simply because you have a right, you have to excercise it at every opportunity, others wishes be damned.

As for flintlocks, glad you can shoot one. I was merely making the point that that was the availible weapon people had to carry when the document was written, so that is what the writers had in mind if they were talking firearms. I highly doubt those guys would have seen fit for an ordinary joe to have a reason or right to carry around an assault rifle with a clip, not that I pretend to speak for them. But I would hope they had the common sense to see that. I come from a long line of hunters and a few military men. I keep a gun in my own house, so no, i don't hate guns. Just trying to get into the thinking of someone who feels they NEED to wherever they go, as I said, others be damned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:angry:

J/K:lol:

As for the arrogance part, I feel a lot of people are arrogant when it comes to their gun rights. Many think their right to carry supercedes a business owner who doesn't want anyone carrying in his business. I feel that business owners rights should come first. I don't see that as stepping on someones liberty as much as it gives them a choice to shop there or not.It's arrogant to think simply because you have a right, you have to excercise it at every opportunity, others wishes be damned.

As for flintlocks, glad you can shoot one. I was merely making the point that that was the availible weapon people had to carry when the document was written, so that is what the writers had in mind if they were talking firearms. I highly doubt those guys would have seen fit for an ordinary joe to have a reason or right to carry around an assault rifle with a clip, not that I pretend to speak for them. But I would hope they had the common sense to see that. I come from a long line of hunters and a few military men. I keep a gun in my own house, so no, i don't hate guns. Just trying to get into the thinking of someone who feels they NEED to wherever they go, as I said, others be damned.

I think we are not so far apart on the issue:

I believe that if a man builds a business he can make whatever rules he wants for his property and his customers can either abide by them or consume elsewhere. I do not feel compelled to break his rules as some defiant outward display of my rights and rub his nose in it.

This is what I meant by an armed polite society that respected social norms.

The smooth-bore musket was the British arm of the time and while the Patriots at Lexington and Concord had them, they also possessed many grooved-barrel rifle that not only increased accuracy, but distance as well. You see, in that particular case, many of the men that dared become the anvil striking the hammer had superior weapons to their British antagonizers.

As the fire for Independance swept the land these rifles became more and more common. I can tell you with all confidence, had Hezekiah Wyman had access to an AR or an M1A he would have leapt at the chance and taken out a whole company long before the alarm was sounded.

Like I said before, anything used as an offensive weapon is by definition an "assault" weapon. But I understand your direction so allow me to address it:

Many of us and our relatives(you intimated you are descinded from a long line of hunters and military men so surely this is no surprise to you)own bolt-action hunting rifles with either floor plates or detachable magazines that hold at least 4-6 rounds. These High-Powered rifles throw a MUCH more powerful round (at much more violent ballistics) than an M16 or an AR.

It is my opinion that the 2nd amendment intent is simply this:

The RIFLE is Liberty's teeth. It is the QUEEN of the battle. For many it is a way of life in terms of sustinance and defense. In a society where we all agree to mutually submit to the law and to our form of government, the RIFLE provides the muscle behind enforcement of all remaining rights. Without it Despots, Dictators and tyranny flourish.

Moreover, a Government is strictly FORBIDDEN from making rules and regulations regarding an ordinary joe's ownership and that includes what some would deem scary, black, evil "assault" rifles.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Moreover, a Government is strictly FORBIDDEN from making rules and regulations regarding an ordinary joe's ownership and that includes what some would deem scary, black, evil "assault" rifles.

I must say, I do find some of these "ban firearms" nuts hilariously ignorant on the subject they are trying to snuff out.

Show them a "scary" AR-15 or a civlian variant of the classic Kalashnikov firing a .223 round, and they freak.

Show them a rifle that fires something like a .308 without a pistol grip, adjustable stock, and with a wooden finish and they aren't that worried.

These people are more afraid of the weapons that they've seen in movies or video games than anything else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say, I do find some of these "ban firearms" nuts hilariously ignorant on the subject they are trying to snuff out.

Show them a "scary" AR-15 or a civlian variant of the classic Kalashnikov firing a .223 round, and they freak.

Show them a rifle that fires something like a .308 without a pistol grip, adjustable stock, and with a wooden finish and they aren't that worried.

These people are more afraid of the weapons that they've seen in movies or video games than anything else.

The media furthers the misconception by falsely conflating so-called "assault weapons" with machine guns. That doesn't help at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That was a comment about the irony of it all. It was not in support of some jack*** redneck talking to a bunch of guys that have been dead for 200 years.

Give up already.

It wasn't irony, and you could have said the bolded part at the beginning of the thread. But you didn't, you defended him and made inane quips about "revolution" because you couldn't bring yourself to acknowledge what everyone other than the rightwing hacks know to be true--this guy is an idiot.

It's not ironic because revolution was always illegal. Revolution is the last resort when a government becomes tyrannical to the rights of the citizenry. This idiot is calling for revolution despite having a government chosen by the people through free and open elections to enact policies on their behalf.

That is the point that these idiot rightwing teaparty people don't realize--we have representation and democracy now. The idiot teaparty people somehow believe that "representation" means they get whatever they want regardless of what the majority of Americans desire. IOW, the teaparty morons believe that "democracy" means that they get to force their minority beliefs on the majority of Americans. The REAL irony is that they use the symbolism of the FOunding Fathers while advocating a system of government completely opposite of what the Constitution provides.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't irony, and you could have said the bolded part at the beginning of the thread. But you didn't, you defended him and made inane quips about "revolution" because you couldn't bring yourself to acknowledge what everyone other than the rightwing hacks know to be true--this guy is an idiot.

It's not ironic because revolution was always illegal. Revolution is the last resort when a government becomes tyrannical to the rights of the citizenry. This idiot is calling for revolution despite having a government chosen by the people through free and open elections to enact policies on their behalf.

That is the point that these idiot rightwing teaparty people don't realize--we have representation and democracy now. The idiot teaparty people somehow believe that "representation" means they get whatever they want regardless of what the majority of Americans desire. IOW, the teaparty morons believe that "democracy" means that they get to force their minority beliefs on the majority of Americans. The REAL irony is that they use the symbolism of the FOunding Fathers while advocating a system of government completely opposite of what the Constitution provides.

FAIL.

I didn't ever even address this bozo. I could care less about some minority party candidate in a state I actually try to avoid.

I started posting in this thread solely to call you on your BS that the right has more crazies than the left.

In fact, your words are evidence of those crazies. You pout and call names when you argue, stomp your feet and post multiple topics on the same subject. You're the left's snake.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't irony, and you could have said the bolded part at the beginning of the thread. But you didn't, you defended him and made inane quips about "revolution" because you couldn't bring yourself to acknowledge what everyone other than the rightwing hacks know to be true--this guy is an idiot.

It's not ironic because revolution was always illegal. Revolution is the last resort when a government becomes tyrannical to the rights of the citizenry. This idiot is calling for revolution despite having a government chosen by the people through free and open elections to enact policies on their behalf.

This is hyperbole on your part, he is a candidate in an election on July 13. It says so in the ad.

That is the point that these idiot rightwing teaparty people don't realize--we have representation and democracy now. The idiot teaparty people somehow believe that "representation" means they get whatever they want regardless of what the majority of Americans desire.

Representation means the person you elected to represent you actually does so instead of following a political party's agenda. It also means that the person you elected will follow the law as perscribed by the Constitution and intervene on behalf of the People. "Democracy" brought us slavery, "Democracy" is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. This iwhy our founder's argued so vehemently against it, and for a representative republic.

IOW, the teaparty morons believe that "democracy" means that they get to force their minority beliefs on the majority of Americans. The REAL irony is that they use the symbolism of the FOunding Fathers while advocating a system of government completely opposite of what the Constitution provides.

Many of what you lump into the "Tea Party" I call the Patriot movement or the Constitutional movement and what we want is for our elected officials to be authentic and beholden to the people they represent, not party or DC. THAT is what the constitution provides, not some notion that if enough people of one group agree to take rights away from another group that due to majority rule (and regardless of Constitutional underpinings) that it is somehow "representative".

Link to post
Share on other sites

FAIL.

I didn't ever even address this bozo. I could care less about some minority party candidate in a state I actually try to avoid.

I started posting in this thread solely to call you on your BS that the right has more crazies than the left.

In fact, your words are evidence of those crazies. You pout and call names when you argue, stomp your feet and post multiple topics on the same subject. You're the left's snake.

:lol::lol::lol:

Fail yourself.

Your response to this guy's idiocy was some lame attempt to connect revolution today to the American Revolution against a monarchy.

I didn't say that the right has more crazies than the left. In fact, I said this:

There were leftwing loonies during Bush, but they weren't part of the mainstream Democratic Party. The GOP has fully embraced the Tea Party idiocy. That's the major difference.

0

Your reading comprehension deficiency bites in the arze again. There are not more idiot fringe rightwingers today as there were idiot fringe leftwingers during Bush. There ARE more idiot fringe GOP candidates right now than Democratic candidates. But then, you would know I said that if you bothered to read or make an effort to comprehend what other people say before making your stupid responses. To wit:

I refer to idiots as idiots. If someone is a moron, I call them a moron. This Alabama candidate is a rightwing moron and people who defend his idiocy (like you) are just like him. Don't like being called an idiot? Don't act like one. But don't whine when myself or others call someone an idiot when he cries "revolution" and has an ad about Obama that continually includes images of a firearm and concludes with "raise your armies".

It's simple--the candidate is a moron and anyone who defends him is also a moron. Bawl all you like about "name-calling", but anybody with half a brain recognizes him as a moron.

Edited by AcworthFalcFan
Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol::lol::lol:

Fail yourself.

Your response to this guy's idiocy was some lame attempt to connect revolution today to the American Revolution against a monarchy.

I didn't say that the right has more crazies than the left. In fact, I said this:

Your reading comprehension deficiency bites in the arze again. There are not more idiot fringe rightwingers today as there were idiot fringe leftwingers during Bush. There ARE more idiot fringe GOP candidates right now than Democratic candidates. But then, you would know I said that if you bothered to read or make an effort to comprehend what other people say before making your stupid responses. To wit:

I refer to idiots as idiots. If someone is a moron, I call them a moron. This Alabama candidate is a rightwing moron and people who defend his idiocy (like you) are just like him. Don't like being called an idiot? Don't act like one. But don't whine when myself or others call someone an idiot when he cries "revolution" and has an ad about Obama that continually includes images of a firearm and concludes with "raise your armies".

It's simple--the candidate is a moron and anyone who defends him is also a moron. Bawl all you like about "name-calling", but anybody with half a brain recognizes him as a moron.

There you go again. I NEVER RESPONDED TO THIS GUY'S IDIOCY. I RESPONDED TO YOU.

When you find yourself in a hole...stop digging.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There you go again. I NEVER RESPONDED TO THIS GUY'S IDIOCY. I RESPONDED TO YOU.

When you find yourself in a hole...stop digging.

:lol::lol::lol:

You responded to me calling this guy an idiot for crying "revolution". And your response was some inane claim about the legality of revolution.

Just stop. You came in here defending the guy, realized how much of a moron you look like defending him, and now you're crawdaddying from your initial defense.

And again, in the process of defending the "revolution" idiocy, you failed to comprehend what I had written and missed that I was talking about CANDIDATES, not activist voters or protesters.

Just crawl out of here with whatever is left of your credibility and let the grownups talk.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...