Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Y'all Qaeda

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Axel wrote: View Post
    Ensuring safe regulations are in place for those guns, isn't unconstitutional.
    Sorry, I may have sidetracked your thread ... haha

    Comment


    • #17
      Axel wrote: View Post
      Ensuring safe regulations are in place for those guns, isn't unconstitutional.
      Sometimes they are.....

      Comment


      • #18
        slaw wrote: View Post
        Sometimes they are.....
        Then change the Constitution.

        Comment


        • #19
          slaw wrote: View Post
          http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/21/politi...oll-americans/

          Yep, just the crazy 52% of Americans..... silly people who believe in their constitutional rights. Everyone knows civil rights are only for the right kinds of people.
          You forgot about this (from your link)....

          Other polls have shown that an overwhelming majority of Americans support expanding background checks to private sales and sales at gun shows, where people can buy guns without undergoing a background check.
          This is in effect all that the gun control side is trying to achieve.

          And please dont muddy the waters bringing in the issue of "civil rights" into this asinine stance of misguided people in Oregon.

          My understanding is the "civil rights" movement began around the time when Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus. She did not pull out a gun to stand up for her rights as a US citizen. Is this what is occurring to the Bundy clan and his supporters in Oregon? Did the Fed. govt. deny anyone anything based on their "civil rights" there?

          "Right kinds of people"? Jeebus.

          Comment


          • #20
            Joey wrote: View Post
            And Constitutions haven't been amended in the past to accommodate changing world views and societal norms?

            And by "crazy", I meant (very callously I admit) those who have been diagnosed as mentally unstable. Right now, depending on how you go about it, ANYONE can get a semi-automatic assault rifle in the States. Legally. Its ridiculous and completely unconscionable.

            You disagree with closing loopholes that allow people diagnosed as mentally unstable to get guns?
            Absolutely, amend the constitution. I've got lots of ideas, too.

            As for 'crazy people', well, who decides who is crazy? You should look up C.O. Chin and the 'crazy negroes' who protected all the non-violent civil rights protestors. They were called 'crazy'.

            And, in fact, the vast majority of crazy people aren't violent (it's only about 4%). Why would anyone support eviscerating the constitutional rights of a large group who will never be violent?

            It's also patently untrue that anyone can buy a gun in the US. Every state has varying degrees of checks, etc., and there are piles of laws already on the books.

            Comment


            • #21
              'Crazy Negros' 😁

              Comment


              • #22
                slaw wrote: View Post
                Absolutely, amend the constitution. I've got lots of ideas, too.

                As for 'crazy people', well, who decides who is crazy? You should look up C.O. Chin and the 'crazy negroes' who protected all the non-violent civil rights protestors. They were called 'crazy'.

                And, in fact, the vast majority of crazy people aren't violent (it's only about 4%). Why would anyone support eviscerating the constitutional rights of a large group who will never be violent?


                It's also patently untrue that anyone can buy a gun in the US. Every state has varying degrees of checks, etc., and there are piles of laws already on the books.
                But it wouldn't. Yes, I was flippant with my usage of the word "crazy", but if you looked into what Obama is actually proposing, it is just ensuring that background checks are done essentially. If the person has been diagnosed as Mentally Unstable and a Violent threat, then there are now ways to prevent them from getting guns. I don't see how that's bad.
                Right now, if you buy guns at Conventions, for example, there are ZERO background check as I understand it; Obama wants to make sure there IS background checks. What is so wrong with that?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Bendit wrote: View Post

                  This is in effect all that the gun control side is trying to achieve.

                  And please dont muddy the waters bringing in the issue of "civil rights" into this asinine stance of misguided people in Oregon.

                  My understanding is the "civil rights" movement began around the time when Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus. She did not pull out a gun to stand up for her rights as a US citizen. Is this what is occurring to the Bundy clan and his supporters in Oregon? Did the Fed. govt. deny anyone anything based on their "civil rights" there?

                  "Right kinds of people"? Jeebus.
                  First sentence is bullcrap.

                  It is a civil right. You don't like it? Amend the constitution.

                  You clearly have no idea about the civil rights movement. Rosa Parks? Good grief. And, actually, as with Joey, I suggest you look up a book called This NonViolent Stuff'll Get You Killed, by Charles Cobb, which is all about how important armed self defense was to the civil rights movement. Rosa Parks? Come on....

                  Yes, the kind of people Bendit likes have the right to occupy parks, government buildings, downtown cores, universities, etc., but the kind of people not on Bendit's team are armed insurrectionists or terrorists or whatnot.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Joey wrote: View Post
                    But it wouldn't. Yes, I was flippant with my usage of the word "crazy", but if you looked into what Obama is actually proposing, it is just ensuring that background checks are done essentially. If the person has been diagnosed as Mentally Unstable and a Violent threat, then there are now ways to prevent them from getting guns. I don't see how that's bad.
                    Right now, if you buy guns at Conventions, for example, there are ZERO background check as I understand it; Obama wants to make sure there IS background checks. What is so wrong with that?
                    But I'm angry now

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Joey wrote: View Post
                      Sorry, I may have sidetracked your thread ... haha
                      Yup
                      Heir, Prince of Cambridge

                      If you see KeonClark in the wasteland, please share your food and water with him.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Axel wrote: View Post
                        Yup
                        To bring it back on point, have these guys been taken care of yet?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          slaw wrote: View Post
                          First sentence is bullcrap.

                          It is a civil right. You don't like it? Amend the constitution.

                          You clearly have no idea about the civil rights movement. Rosa Parks? Good grief. And, actually, as with Joey, I suggest you look up a book called This NonViolent Stuff'll Get You Killed, by Charles Cobb, which is all about how important armed self defense was to the civil rights movement. Rosa Parks? Come on....

                          Yes, the kind of people Bendit likes have the right to occupy parks, government buildings, downtown cores, universities, etc., but the kind of people not on Bendit's team are armed insurrectionists or terrorists or whatnot.
                          First bold: I get that a lot (only from the usual few here). But crickets after that. Explain please and how much it smells.

                          Second bold: Again, explain how. Are you trying to equate the plight of the black people in America borne out of slavery with any other group of immigrants who may have suffered their own group subjugation by the already settled population?

                          Third bold: And you do? Explain again...or I'll take it as more crickets not chirping.

                          As far as Charles Cobb....I fail to see the relevance. You are again conflating and equating the struggles of the profound injustices suffered by black people in 20th century America (I'll make it easy for you) with these yahoos in Oregon? Cobb as I see it understands the need for armed protection against vile Klan types and local state govts who sent out their goons to intimidate any who protested their basic CIVIL RIGHTS. Taking over a designated National Park (wildlife preserve) is NOT a civil right nor was one taken away. Go to a court.

                          And if you have "the right to bear arms" on your mind, the 2nd Amendment was some 200 years ago. Most things progress but conservatives give new meaning to living in the past when muskets was the weapon of the century and loading it wasnt considered a problem. You are aware that most states have their so called "state militias" and the Feds now have drones to piss on any cowboys who believe they can commit a serious insurrection. These guys goals (do they have any) are laughable alongwith you defending the indefensible.

                          ps...I think you have another Bendit confused with your last couple of sentences. And we both seem to disagree with you.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            A good summation of the Oregon Qaeda insurrection and advice going forward.

                            This is an editorial in the NY Times.


                            It is a familiar claim by many Second Amendment defenders — and, during the Obama administration, an increasingly popular one — that unfettered gun rights are necessary to protect American citizens against the threat of a tyrannical government.

                            In addition to being a misreading of history, the claim is amusing hyperbole to those who have suffered under real-life tyrants. But this week’s armed standoff at a federal wildlife sanctuary in eastern Oregon is showing how far a small, determined band of anti government zealots with lots of big guns will go to make their potentially deadly point.

                            Styling themselves as a militia, the group hijacked a peaceful protest over five-year prison sentences a federal court had imposed on two local ranchers for setting fires on federal land. Led by a man named Ammon Bundy — whose father, Cliven, instigated his own armed confrontation with federal authorities over cattle ranching in Nevada in 2014 — this hyper weaponized posse rolled into town and seized administrative buildings at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge on Saturday. Mr. Bundy said they are willing to stay for “as long as necessary,” and that “if force is used against us, we would defend ourselves.”

                            The occupation is the latest outgrowth of a long-running movement by some ranchers and farmers who believe the federal government controls far too much land in Oregon, Nevada and other Western states. Mr. Bundy and his gun-toting comrades argue that a century of federal policies has driven many ranchers into poverty and destroyed the rural economy.

                            This is mostly nonsense. As part of its congressional mandate to balance commercial and environmental concerns, including conservation, the federal government imposes reasonable rules on how public land can be used for mining, logging and ranching. On the whole Washington has been a benevolent, even generous landlord.

                            There may be a good argument that the two ranchers in this case, Dwight Hammond and his son, Steven, were punished unreasonably harshly for their crimes. But the way to have this argument is through peaceful means, such as the original protesters were doing, or as the Hammonds themselves chose to do — by reporting to prison and asking President Obama for clemency. Every day, citizens around the country sue or otherwise challenge the government over alleged violations of the law or the Constitution, and they do it without a rifle in their hand.

                            A democracy cannot function any other way. It thrives on principled disagreement, but it withers in the face of a loaded gun.

                            Such dangerous behavior also puts law enforcement in an impossible position: respond with force and people may well die; walk away — as Bureau of Land Management officials did with Cliven Bundy — and the extremists are only emboldened. (On Monday, according to The Guardian, federal authorities said they planned to shut off power to the buildings.)

                            Mr. Bundy and his band of militants have made few friends. Local law enforcement has told them to leave immediately. Many residents, even those who agree that the federal government owns and mismanages too much land, have strongly rejected Mr. Bundy’s gun-happy tactics. The Hammonds’ own lawyer disassociated his clients from the group. And while years of overheated antigovernment statements from right-wing politicians and media figures have helped to fuel exactly this sort of outburst, it is encouraging that many on the right have called for the militants to stand down. When Ted Cruz says you’ve gone too far, it’s worth listening.

                            The simple message Mr. Bundy and his band must hear is this: If everyone with a gripe against the government responded by threatening federal officials with weapons, America would no longer be a nation governed by the rule of law. Their grievances, like everyone else’s, can be addressed. But not before they put down the guns.
                            Amazing...Ted Cruz being the voice of reason!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Joey wrote: View Post
                              To bring it back on point, have these guys been taken care of yet?
                              FBI and local police seem content to simply wait them out at this point. The plan was to shut off electricity, phone lines and road access, but haven't seen a confirmed report that it has happened yet, but I suspect it has.

                              There was a similar incident in Texas in 1993 and the FBI tried to use force to get the militia out and 100 people died. Makes sense that they'd just wait them out this time.

                              The militia has said there will be a time when enough is enough, but that it will be when the Hammonds are released from prison. A more detailed report I saw said that the Hammonds were convicted of setting 130 acres of federal park land on fire to cover up illegal deer poaching.
                              Heir, Prince of Cambridge

                              If you see KeonClark in the wasteland, please share your food and water with him.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Nilanka wrote: View Post
                                The main difference here is that the Bundys aren't raping and stoning women, tossing homosexuals off buildings, blowing up buildings, murdering people in mass volumes for not being Islamic, yada, yada, yada.

                                There's a huge distance between the Bundy's right now and radical Islam right now. Is what they're doing right? No. Is it crazy? Yes. Are they as dangerous as radical Islam? No, it would appear to be media sensationalism.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X