Not if he wants to discuss–I’ll discuss all day. It’s if he wants to be insulting and claim people he disagrees with are not “real Americans.” That I regard as an insult. How do you think it’s meant?
Ric Golding said:Here is an e-mail I wrote to a man whose father was a music teacher. His father gave his last music lesson at 81 years of age. I was advising Randy, who was putting together a PA system for his Church to host Christian Rock bands. Randy himself is a Professor at a Northern University.
Mike, I truly believe there is an ongoing process to destroy this Country from within by non-Christian educators
“Hi Randy,
Me again.
I’m sure you were very proud of your Dad.
To play for one President is impressive.To play for four Presidents is simply amazing !
And to still be giving music lessons just a few months ago. All I can say is wow.
Teaching is the most noble of professions.
I have 8 children. Of the five who are adult age, I have one at Western Carolina University who will be a teacher.
Again, my condolences.
Ralph”
I believe every word I said here.
Where I live and the schools my children attended, there certainly is no leftist conspiracy.
And I certainly would have no qualms about having Mike O’Malley teach any of my children.
There are some bad teachers out there, just as there are bad people in most any profession.
My children were taught to think for themselves long before they were put in the care of the schools.
Ralph
“What does Pelosi have to do with anything in a classroom?”
Its just a nicer word than “Bull Sh!t”, but pretty much the same thing. Sorry, conservative humor.
Ralph I’m blushing. Cut that out.
Teaching is a good gig but I just as often fail as I suceed. I come home, my wife says “how’d it go?” She never knows if I’m going to say “it went great!” or “what a disaster!”
I have a grad class tonight, and we’re doing the 1890s. Our grad classes are fantastic–we get mostly adults, people from 25-70, who are there because they want to be, people with careers and real life experience who don’t hesitate to challenge.
I apologize for losing my temper. It’s not appropriate no matter what the provocation
mike omalley said:
I don't mind people who disagree--I enjoy a debate. I'm sick and tired of people who claim the mantle of "real American' for themselves, and dismiss the rest of us. Does that explan where the animosity comes from?Now which “truths” do you think liberals feel threatened by?
You’re the one who feels the need to be heavily armed, I guess because liberals are scary? I can only conclude that it’s because you really believe people you disagree with are dangerous, they aren’t “real americans,” they’re menacing and scary. I think it must be a tough way to live, feeling under siege all the time.
I would never claim that I represent the “real america” and you don’t, because it seems to me that America is too complex to be reduced to one set of beliefs, and that’s it’s strength.
You suggested I should have a gun if we ever met. As far as being on guard 24/7, sure aren’t you especially if you are with your wife and/or children? Do you have car insurance? Why, are you expecting to crash your car? Do you have a fire extinguisher? Why, are you expecting your house to burn down? Are you paranoid because you prepare for the worst and hope for the best?
Liberals are afraid:
.of the truth that some people prefer to defend themselves.
.that the Constitution says freedom OF religion not freedom from religion.
.that not everyone wants to be cared for cradle to grave.
.people will soon discover there actually is a liberal media bias.
Personally I carry a gun with me because a cop is too heavy.
Remember calling 911 is nothing more than Dial-A-Prayer.
When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.
The cops will arrive just in time to scribe the chalk outline around your cold dead liberal body.
If you are ever trapped in a 7-11 with a raving madman shooting everyone with a gun, are you cowering in the corner saying to yourself, I wish they’d pass a law against this kind of stuff, or are you wishing someone with a gun would stop him?
Do you believe, a woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet?
Can you quote me where I said you were not an American for any reason, mike?
Nah–not worth it. have a good night
David Hill said:Now that's funny. You and Mike both catch enough crap here, for different reasons. I have to give you both "A"s for your tenacity. Ralph
Personally I carry a gun with me because a cop is too heavy.
David Hill said:David, in your scenario where exactly did the 'raving madman' get his handgun? If your constitution actually discouraged ownership of weapons then there would be considerably less violent crime. It is more dangerous to live in Washington DC than downtown Bagdhad. Your gun ownership mentality constitution was written at a time of war, when the fledgling 13 states rebelled against their colonial rulers. A constitution written post-War of Independence would have a different mentality. Your constitution does not authorise you to carry a gun, but allows you to defend yourself as part of a militia. There is a big differnece in the interpretation.
Personally I carry a gun with me because a cop is too heavy. Remember calling 911 is nothing more than Dial-A-Prayer. When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away. The cops will arrive just in time to scribe the chalk outline around your cold dead liberal body. If you are ever trapped in a 7-11 with a raving madman shooting everyone with a gun, are you cowering in the corner saying to yourself, I wish they'd pass a law against this kind of stuff, or are you wishing someone with a gun would stop him? Do you believe, a woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet?
You carry a gun, which makes you no different to any other street thug. By carrying a gun you are the one being confrontational and thus violating the spirit of your own constitution. By carrying a gun you are taking an offensive stance and not a defensive stance. Exactly how many times have you had to defend your family's honour or been confronted by a gun-toting raving madman or a hostile action of your own government? Your constitution allows for armed militias, not individual carrying of weapons.Tim Brien said:David Hill said:David, in your scenario where exactly did the 'raving madman' get his handgun? If your constitution actually discouraged ownership of weapons then there would be considerably less violent crime. It is more dangerous to live in Washington DC than downtown Bagdhad. Your gun ownership mentality constitution was written at a time of war, when the fledgling 13 states rebelled against their colonial rulers. A constitution written post-War of Independence would have a different mentality. Your constitution does not authorise you to carry a gun, but allows you to defend yourself as part of a militia. There is a big differnece in the interpretation.
Personally I carry a gun with me because a cop is too heavy. Remember calling 911 is nothing more than Dial-A-Prayer. When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away. The cops will arrive just in time to scribe the chalk outline around your cold dead liberal body. If you are ever trapped in a 7-11 with a raving madman shooting everyone with a gun, are you cowering in the corner saying to yourself, I wish they'd pass a law against this kind of stuff, or are you wishing someone with a gun would stop him? Do you believe, a woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet?You carry a gun, which makes you no different to any other street thug. By carrying a gun you are the one being confrontational and thus violating the spirit of your own constitution. By carrying a gun you are taking an offensive stance and not a defensive stance. Exactly how many times have you had to defend your family's honour or been confronted by a gun-toting raving madman or a hostile action of your own government? Your constitution allows for armed militias, not individual carrying of weapons.</blockquote>Where do I start on this one? How do I give an American history lesson in a few sentences.
Let me start with, Tim you are wrong on many counts here.
Criminals, by definition do not obey laws, whether gun laws or any other laws. So unless you can rid the world of ALL guns and all metal lathes and other machine shop equipment, we will have guns. Sorry, but there it is.
D.C. has earned the title of the Murder Capital of the World, for the simple reason it prohibits private citizens from owning operational handguns on their persons or in their homes. This also applies in degrees to Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit, New York City, Philadelphia The town I live in has a very low incident per capita violent crime rate. I can go outside on any given sunny Saturday afternoon and hear no fewer than three citizens exercising their freedom to own and practice shooting a gun.
You excoriate me for wanting to protect my life and the lives of my family while awake. There are only a handful of people that know me that know I carry a gun, occasionally I will carry openly when I am in the mood to educate people on their 2A right.
Do you sir own a fire extinguisher? Does that make you an arsonist, waiting to lite a fire? Do you wear a set belt or helmet? Carry life insurance? Would you ever step in to protect your family from a murderer or rapist? Could you defend them best by scolding the perp on why what they are doing is illegal, or would you then, at that moment in time wish you had a gun.
I could not live with myself if I ever had to watch as my wife or daughter was a victim of a violent crime, and I decided I was a barbarian after reading a post on an internet forum, and left my gun at home locked in the safe. Could you?
We are a free people BECAUSE we have this “gun culture” which you do not understand.
Mike,
You said - “Ric this is a favorite theme of yours–that education is an empty experience of ticket punching, in which you pretend to agree with the raving liberal teacher in order to be done as quickly as possible”
I seem to be apologizing again (this politcal correctness stuff is tough). I have not had the pleasure of many teachers that have had much World experience outside of the classroom and found that the more you argue (strike that) debate with them, the longer you have to stay in the class. I’ve met few conservative teachers.
David,
Quote:“We are a free people BECAUSE we have this “gun culture” which you do not understand.”
If freedom means living without fear of oppression, then why carry or feel the need to own a gun? It is fear that forces you to carry or own a gun. What is the basis of this FEAR - someone else is likewise carrying a gun? Your constitution gave you the right to protect yourself as an armed militia, not as an armed individual.
Quote:"…There are only a handful of people that know me that know I carry a gun, occasionally I will carry openly when I am in the mood to educate people on their 2A right."
By carrying and displaying your weapon does that empower you over others? This then makes you an oppressor, the very sort of person that you are protecting yourself from.
Tim Brien said:I like this. An Aussie telling us what OUR Constitution says. Regardless of your opinion, in many States, including North Carolina, you may openly carry a gun. You may also apply and receive a concealed weapons permit. You don't like it? Who cares. I could care less if things are different where you are. Ralph
Your constitution allows for armed militias, not individual carrying of weapons.
Ralph,
Your Second Amendment, has the following wording, approved by the House on Sept. 21st, 1789 and ratified on Dec.15th, 1791.
Quote: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Where does it state that citizens may openly carry and display weapons? Have you actually read your own laws? Citizens are permitted to own ‘arms’ to ensure the ‘security of a free state’. No doubt you are also a gun owner. I think all Americans should own weapons, as in time the problem will self-alleviate. Those who have gone to war and have actually fought for their freedom (and their lives) rarely express their experiences and yet those who carry weapons like to brag about it. Sort of says a lot about their character.
Tim Brien said:
Ralph, Your Second Amendment, has the following wording, approved by the House on Sept. 21st, 1789 and ratified on Dec.15th, 1791.Quote: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Where does it state that citizens may openly carry and display weapons? Have you actually read your own laws? Citizens are permitted to own ‘arms’ to ensure the ‘security of a free state’. No doubt you are also a gun owner. I think all Americans should own weapons, as in time the problem will self-alleviate. Those who have gone to war and have actually fought for their freedom (and their lives) rarely express their experiences and yet those who carry weapons like to brag about it. Sort of says a lot about their character.
Where did I brag about carrying a weapon? Just informing you of the law here and the fact I could give a crap on your opinion of our laws.
If the law is different where you are, fine.
I’m not advocating changing your laws. If you like your laws, fine with me.
Ralph
Tim Brien said:
David, Quote:"We are a free people BECAUSE we have this "gun culture" which you do not understand."If freedom means living without fear of oppression, then why carry or feel the need to own a gun? It is fear that forces you to carry or own a gun. What is the basis of this FEAR - someone else is likewise carrying a gun? Your constitution gave you the right to protect yourself as an armed militia, not as an armed individual.
Quote:"…There are only a handful of people that know me that know I carry a gun, occasionally I will carry openly when I am in the mood to educate people on their 2A right."
By carrying and displaying your weapon does that empower you over others? This then makes you an oppressor, the very sort of person that you are protecting yourself from.
WHY THE GUN IS CIVILIZATION
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and
force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of
either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding
under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those
two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact
through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social
interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is
the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to
use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your
threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon
that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger,
a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger,
and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys
with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical
strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad
force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more
civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm
makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course,
is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed
either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most
of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the
banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and
the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A
mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a
society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal
that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is
fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are
won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on
the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t
constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings
and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun
makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker
defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is
level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an
octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply
wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal
and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight,
but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means
that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m
afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the
actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the
actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the
equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
Actually, Tim, you and a lot of folks have been confused by trying to read 18th century writing through the glasses of the 21st century. That comma was placed there for a purpose, to separate two ideas. What is being said here is this:
Idea #1. Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right to maintain a well regulated militia shall not be infringed.
Idea #2. The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
These are the two ideas contained in the Second Amendment.
David Hill said:David, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), No. 07-290, that "[t]he Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." This was a highly emotionally charged determination and was seen by many, as a test of the extent to which the original wording of the Second Ammendment could be interpretated.
.....D.C. has earned the title of the Murder Capital of the World, for the simple reason it prohibits private citizens from owning operational handguns on their persons or in their homes.....
This contradicts your reason as to why the murder rate is so high in Washington. There are actually other reasons, more racially biassed to define the real reason for the crime rate, but the end result is that guns are the weapon of choice.Tim Brien said:
Ralph, Your Second Amendment, has the following wording, approved by the House on Sept. 21st, 1789 and ratified on Dec.15th, 1791.Quote: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Where does it state that citizens may openly carry and display weapons? Have you actually read your own laws? Citizens are permitted to own ‘arms’ to ensure the ‘security of a free state’. No doubt you are also a gun owner. I think all Americans should own weapons, as in time the problem will self-alleviate. Those who have gone to war and have actually fought for their freedom (and their lives) rarely express their experiences and yet those who carry weapons like to brag about it. Sort of says a lot about their character.
If you were open to learning what our Second Amendment says in plain American English, I would tell you that:
The Phrase “A well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state…” is what is called a “preamble”. Preambles were in common use during the 18th and into the nineteenth century in all sorts ofg different documents written at that time, i.e. “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.”.
The word “militia” means: MILI’TIA, n. [L. from miles, a soldier; Gr. war, to fight, combat, contention. The primary sense of fighting is to strive, struggle, drive, or to strike, to beat, Eng. moil, L. molior; Heb. to labor or toil.] The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades,with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations. (Boldface is mine)
Since the US National Guard was not formed until 1903, the 2A could not have been talking about a government employed standing army.
Since you are a firm believer in “survival of the fittest” I suppose the problem of criminals with no respect for life versus the “let’s all just be nice to each other, kumbuya” you spoke of will self-alleviate.
Tim Brien said:David Hill said:David, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), No. 07-290, that "[t]he Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." This was a highly emotionally charged determination and was seen by many, as a test of the extent to which the original wording of the Second Ammendment could be interpretated.
.....D.C. has earned the title of the Murder Capital of the World, for the simple reason it prohibits private citizens from owning operational handguns on their persons or in their homes.....This contradicts your reason as to why the murder rate is so high in Washington. There are actually other reasons, more racially biassed to define the real reason for the crime rate, but the end result is that guns are the weapon of choice.</blockquote>No it doesn’t. Where do you get you false info? The citizens of DC still do not have that right restored. More lawsuits are pending based on Heller.