Large Scale Central

Up-holding gun rights in DC

General Discussion
#21
Brian Donovan said:
Ralph Berg said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/12/AR2009031202998.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

From the author: “If strict gun control worked, then the District – which had long been home to the nation’s most restrictive gun control measures – would be the safest place in the country. But gun violence in the city was consistently among the highest in the nation throughout the 30 years that the city banned handguns. The reason is obvious: A gun control law will not dissuade violent criminals from killing or robbing with guns.”

I agree. Criminals don’t abide by the law. Wack jobs don’t either.
Ralph


What the writer of that opinion fails to recognize/acknowledge is that DC borders Virginia which had and still does have some of the most liberal gun purchasing laws in the country. Its a joke much like we are now seeing in Mexico with the drug cartels. They are running around with US supplied AK-47s while the Mexican police are equipped with peashooters. Chalk up another ringing endorsement of the NRA, Mexican drug lords.

-Brian


“The writer, a Republican from Nevada, is chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee.” :slight_smile:
Ralph

#22
TonyWalsham said:
Steve, You need to actually read what people write instead of clutching at straws. I replied to that comment a bit back into the thread. If you don't like my reply I can't help that. Sorry.

I can only assume you and David don’t approve of anyone asking questions you don’t like, so you try and assassinate their character as way of avoiding an honest reply.

You wrote: “I will so limit myself when the bad guys, the police and the standing army so limits themselves. Until then, it’s not gonna happen.”
Does that really mean how it reads?
That you think the police and standing armies are the bad guys?


Sophistry again, Tony. Can’t you do any better?

#23

Deleted

#24

Do you even know what sophistry means, Tony?

#25
TonyWalsham said:
Once again I give you the opportunity to deny it means you think the police and standing armies are the bad guys.
Tony, over several threads, David has referenced a 'tyrannical government' as one reason to possess firearms in support of the constitution. This has caused me to consider a paranoid personality to think that big brother is ever vigilant to deprive him of his rights. It is people like this who are not content with a single weapon, but a complete arsenal, with enough ammunition to ward off any AT&F onslaught. One can never be too cautious about a government who tries to disarm its population.
#26

Deleted

#27
TonyWalsham said:
David, Read what I said carefully and you will realise that what I said is a question. It has a question mark at the end. It is not a comment. I did not offer an opinion so you cannot say I am right or wrong. As such, in your zeal at trying avoid an answer, your somewhat convoluted logic got you ahead of yourself, which resulted in what you think is your "question", being not really a question.

I cannot answer a non question. :wink:

If I did answer the non question, I would be offering an opinion about domestic USA politics. Something I keep telling you I don’t do.


True a question mark, but it was an ironic question, you surely knew my answer would be in the negative. You asked a question which I answered with a question of my own, to allow you to understand the value of your question, which you have yet to answer. Since I assume with you being upside-down on the bottom-side of the Earth, all the blood rushes to your head, I’ll make this easier for you:

QUESTION: Do you believe that Americans should be limited to the use of printing presses available in 1789 in the same way you suggest they should be limited to the ownership of weapons available in the same time period?

A.) Yes, I believe that just as gun owners should only be allowed to own gun available at the time the American Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment, all printing of any sort should be limited to the technology available at the same time as the First Amendment (freedom of the press) was written.

B.) No, that would be absurd. Obviously the Founding Fathers were keenly aware of advancements in technology in their time and did not attempt to write any such restrictions into the Bill Of Rights.

C.) I choose not to answer because it would expose the weakness of my argument, again.

#28
Tim Brien said:
TonyWalsham said:
Once again I give you the opportunity to deny it means you think the police and standing armies are the bad guys.
Tony, over several threads, David has referenced a 'tyrannical government' as one reason to possess firearms in support of the constitution. This has caused me to consider a paranoid personality to think that big brother is ever vigilant to deprive him of his rights. It is people like this who are not content with a single weapon, but a complete arsenal, with enough ammunition to ward off any AT&F onslaught. One can never be too cautious about a government who tries to disarm its population.
Tim, an honest question for you; How many instances in the 20th century have tyrannical governments evolved (there's a word you like ;) ) in a short period of time, oppressing it's citizens?, and a second question, if I may: What assurances can you give that such tyranny could never happen to the USA?

Preparedness and paranoia may be the same thing, just at different levels of the threat.

#29

Deleted

#30

No, Tony. Your turn.

#31

David,
many dictatorial and mutinous governments have arisen in the 20th century, as in other centuries. However, you need to look at why they appeared and what they did once in power. Look to communism, the blood diamond trade in Africa, cocaine distribution and corruption in Central and South America and oil in the Middle East. These governments came to power to suppress their citizens, by the force that having the money to afford an army, enables. Look to current day Zimbabwe. The economy is basically destroyed, thousands dying or affected by cholera and starving and yet the country sustains a large well provisioned army. Look to Somalia and the ongoing war to rid the country of those who oppose the current regime. There are those who gain while in power and those who suffer at their hands. governments swept into power by deeds of violence are generally no better than the government they replaced.

     Now look to your own country.  The revolution started as an emerging country saw the need and the right to determine its own future,  free of colonial masters.  It was not funded by blood diamonds, or racism or drug proceeds,  or communistic ideals.  It was started by people driven by the need for personal freedom.  Since 1776,  how many military coups have occurred?  Even the Civil War was supposedly about peoples' freedom (although I see it as more a 'whiteman's war than actually a slave issue).  The Independence war was basically a 'northern' problem as the South were happy with their social structure.

     Since 1776,  how many times has the armed services taken marshall law over the entire population?  There were times of localised civil unrest,  when the national guard were deployed,  but in general,  the population has been free of military internvention.  You have been brainwashed by your rifle association to believe that your own government is usurping your divine right to own firearms.  At the time the constitution was written,  the federated states were engaged in a bitter war with the British.  One is able to understand the mentality of an emerging goverment wanting its citizens to be armed to repel an invader.  However,  your beliefs are not with an external government , but with counteracting the imagined intent of your own governemnt,  elected by your own peers.  You believe that you know better than anyone else what your governemnt has planned to control its own people.  If you espoused these beliefs in the 1940's and 1950's you would have been lobotomised and yet you and millions of your fellow conspirators,  arm yourself for the inevitable day when your own country will deprive you of your god-given rights to repel any who infringe your perceived freedom,  even if it is your own elected government.  If you lived in the Mc Carthy years you would have been outed as a communist.
#32

Deleted

#33

First of all Tim, my views in the 1940s -50s would have been mainstream, the norm. Many American high school students drove to school with a deer hunting rifle in the rear window and not bother to lock their truck doors. It was a different time, for sure.

In the past 20 years or so, I have seen many of our rights stripped away by an abusive, over zelous Federal government. Invasions of privacy, loss of personal property rights, gun-control, freedom of speech curtailed, an unconstitutional Federal Reserve system, a rising national debt, undeclared wars and invasions, suspension of habeas corpus, failure of Congress to respond to numerous petitions for redress of grievances, etc.

This nation is not the same country I was born into, and unless a change is effected soon, we will cease to be a free citizenry. You may argue I am wrong, but it looks different from inside.

#34
TonyWalsham said:
David, you have offered three answers to your own question so how could I possibly top that? ;)

A simple Yes or No to my original question would be nice.

…and just so you don’t forget. I never comment on domestic USA politics.


Liar! You began your discussion in this thread with a comment on USA politics, and often chime in on our system of government. I answered you question two or three posts back. You refuse to answer mine which is answer C.

#35
David Hill said:
First of all Tim, my views in the 1940s -50s would have been mainstream, the norm. Many American high school students drove to school with a deer hunting rifle in the rear window and not bother to lock their truck doors. It was a different time, for sure.
David, I am sure that the deer hunting rifle was not to ward off an internal threat from your own government. At the time, the cold war was at its peak. Post-WW2, many did not trust Russia, or China or the newly emerging Cuba and communist revolutions within South America. The 1950's, 1960's were a period of the threat of nuclear attack. I am sure that the average 'Joe the plumber', did not believe his own country was going to rebel from within. It was a time when citizens relied on the strength of their government to ward off any potential threat from the then enemy, communism. 
     I am sure that the returning soldier,  from WW2,  did not believe that his own country was going to deprive him of his constitutional rights, so refute that your paranoid/cynical views were those expressed in the 1940's.  Such views would have been seen as 'anti-American' and given the strong anti-communist feelings in the late 1940's,  such views would not have been tolerated.  In my opinion,  widespread 'anti-American' views were not openly expressed within America,  until the mid-1960's/early 1970's to protest America's involvement in Vietnam.  It was Johnson who ramped up troop numbers in Vietnam and it was this that stirred emotions.
#36
Tim Brien said:
David Hill said:
First of all Tim, my views in the 1940s -50s would have been mainstream, the norm. Many American high school students drove to school with a deer hunting rifle in the rear window and not bother to lock their truck doors. It was a different time, for sure.
David, I am sure that the deer hunting rifle was not to ward off an internal threat from your own government. At the time, the cold war was at its peak. Post-WW2, many did not trust Russia, or China or the newly emerging Cuba and communist revolutions within South America. The 1950's, 1960's were a period of the threat of nuclear attack. I am sure that the average 'Joe the plumber', did not believe his own country was going to rebel from within. It was a time when citizens relied on the strength of their government to ward off any potential threat from the then enemy, communism. 
     I am sure that the returning soldier,  from WW2,  did not believe that his own country was going to deprive him of his constitutional rights, so refute that your paranoid/cynical views were those expressed in the 1940's.  Such views would have been seen as 'anti-American' and given the strong anti-communist feelings in the late 1940's,  such views would not have been tolerated.  In my opinion,  widespread 'anti-American' views were not openly expressed within America,  until the mid-1960's/early 1970's to protest America's involvement in Vietnam.  It was Johnson who ramped up troop numbers in Vietnam and it was this that stirred emotions.</blockquote>

The point you are missing, but you alluded to it, was expressing socialist or communist views post WWII was considered anti-American. Today those views are mainstream, but occasionally veiled in double-speak. The returning troops had no reason to believe the gubmint was depriving him of his rights, at least not to the level of insanity of what we have today.

Johnson is also the author of the Great Society which indebted generations of us, and began much of our socialization.

#37

David,
the constant rotation of troops to Iraq and eventually Afghanistan, ‘stop loss’, has, I believe, opened a degree of cynicism in the American soldier towards his government. This feeling will amplify as the folly that is Afghanistan, drags on for at least ten years, with the only outcome, an American withdrawal. Kissinger believed in ‘detent’, as does Obama and it is ‘detent’ that was more constructive to America’s foreign policy than any number of foreign wars.

     Look to Russia in the mid-1980's as it embraced western capitalism to ward off total economic collapse.  The world missed its chance and by the late 1990's a group of ex and existing Russian intelligence officers took over the Russian government and continue to run it today with as much ruthless power as under the Stalin years.  State sanctioned murder and imprisonment is rampant against those who oppose the regime.  It is governments like this that citizens fear.  Under Cheney I could see why Americans would distrust theit own government,  as he deprived people of their rights from 2001 onwards.
#38
Tim Brien said:
David, the constant rotation of troops to Iraq and eventually Afghanistan, 'stop loss', has, I believe, opened a degree of cynicism in the American soldier towards his government. This feeling will amplify as the folly that is Afghanistan, drags on for at least ten years, with the only outcome, an American withdrawal. Kissinger believed in 'detent', as does Obama and it is 'detent' that was more constructive to America's foreign policy than any number of foreign wars. 
     Look to Russia in the mid-1980's as it embraced western capitalism to ward off total economic collapse.  The world missed its chance and by the late 1990's a group of ex and existing Russian intelligence officers took over the Russian government and continue to run it today with as much ruthless power as under the Stalin years.  State sanctioned murder and imprisonment is rampant against those who oppose the regime.  It is governments like this that citizens fear.  Under Cheney I could see why Americans would distrust theit own government,  as he deprived people of their rights from 2001 onwards.</blockquote>

The US troops I have personally spoken to (dozens) are proud of their service and have extended their service contracts voluntarily. Many have requested to be redeployed overseas. I have no idea where in the hell you get your information about their cynicism.

Obama promised he would, within his first month in office, withdraw all US troops from war. The bastard first lie.

Nikita Khrushchev said we would be conquered from within, he wouldn’t have to lift a finger. We are adopting the Communist Manifesto one tenant at a time. It is taught in our schools (a Marxist tactic), good is bad and bad is good, very 1984-ish double-speak.

Our Constitution has been under siege since Woodrow Wilson to FRD, Kennedy and Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Bush 41 and 43, Clinton and now this buffoon usurper. Folks are fed up and things will have to change here soon.

#39
Quote:
... Obama promised he would, within his first month in office, withdraw all US troops from war. The bastard first lie.
Actually, throughout the campaign, Obama was very consistent in saying he would "end the war responsibly." At no point did he ever imply that meant all troops out immediately. He knew--as do pretty much every one of us--that a wholesale withdrawal of troops from Iraq would be a very bad thing. He also consistently stated that he would focus our troops' energies on Afghanistan. Read the headlines. 18,000 troops due to pull out of Iraq pretty much ASAP, for the most part being redeployed to Afghanistan. Now, I'm as cynical about politics as anyone, but seems to me he's actually--shudder!--doing what he said he'd do.

Later,

K

#40
David Hill said:
The US troops I have personally spoken to (dozens) are proud of their service and have extended their service contracts voluntarily. Many have requested to be redeployed overseas. I have no idea where in the hell you get your information about their cynicism.
David, it may be a suprise to you but a lot more than 'dozens' of troops went to Iraq. Stop loss was enforced to keep experienced groups together, irrespective of individual end of rotation, etc. Nothing was said about not being proud to serve, that is your assumption. Maybe the 'dozens' you spoke to were fully supportive of continual redeployment. Not all Americans are as gunho gunhappy as you! Do you actually know what 'stop loss' is?

Just in case I added a Wikpedia link -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-loss_policy