Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Y'all Qaeda

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

  • Apollo
    replied
    “I think what I’d do, as president, is I would make a phone call to whoever, to the group,” he said, adding later, “I’d talk to the leader. I would talk to him and I would say, ‘You gotta get out — come see me, but you gotta get out.'”

    “You cannot let people take over federal property,” Mr. Trump said. “You can’t, because once you do that, you don’t have a government anymore. I think, frankly, they’ve been there too long.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/politics/firs...inese-exports/

    Trump is good at saying what whoever he's speaking to wants to hear.

    I don't think a President should be directly involved with something like this. These guys are looking for validation and there's no bigger validation of their "power" than for the most powerful man on earth to stop what he's doing and have a chat with them. It makes the government look weak and incompetent and it makes the crazies with guns look strong.

    Leave a comment:


  • Miekenstien
    replied
    Axel wrote: View Post
    So back to the REAL topic of this thread....

    The County Sherriff had his first face to face meeting with Ammon Bundy (terrible name) yesterday:

    "I'm here because the citizens of Harney County have asked me to come out and ask you folks to peacefully leave," Ward said, offering the protesters a "safe escort" out.

    But Bundy declined, saying he and his compatriots were "being ignored again."

    "The government, in order to be legitimate in these United States, must acknowledge a redress of grievances by citizens," he said.

    The two men then shook hands and went their separate ways. The sheriff's office said they planned to meet again Friday.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...upiers-n492486

    So we wait....

    lol, the bold. government not legit until these guys are allowed to do whatever they want. haha

    Leave a comment:


  • Axel
    replied
    So back to the REAL topic of this thread....

    The County Sherriff had his first face to face meeting with Ammon Bundy (terrible name) yesterday:

    "I'm here because the citizens of Harney County have asked me to come out and ask you folks to peacefully leave," Ward said, offering the protesters a "safe escort" out.

    But Bundy declined, saying he and his compatriots were "being ignored again."

    "The government, in order to be legitimate in these United States, must acknowledge a redress of grievances by citizens," he said.

    The two men then shook hands and went their separate ways. The sheriff's office said they planned to meet again Friday.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...upiers-n492486

    So we wait....

    Leave a comment:


  • Miekenstien
    replied
    Apollo wrote: View Post
    That guys sounds like a real and more dangerous MacGuiver.

    Question: who was he defending his farm from?
    local government that wanted to steal his land and sell it to construction. they hire the mob to go at the families and if they don't leave from fear or beatings they send in the police

    Leave a comment:


  • Apollo
    replied
    That guys sounds like a real and more dangerous MacGuiver.

    Question: who was he defending his farm from?

    Leave a comment:


  • Miekenstien
    replied
    Axel wrote: View Post
    To make sure the constitution is fairly applied to all, they should remove all modern firearms from the population and provide everyone with muskets when they turn 18.
    lol. lets take it a step further and get rid of all the guns in the world. the problem with this is that if the citizens have only muskets and the government of tyranny has mp5s then the "freedom fighters" will be slaughtered.

    the idea that the government will never resort to that again is naive.

    very strong registry laws should be in place to control the dispersal of firearms to make sure criminals and mentally unstable people can't purchase them.

    in china the people make man made rocket launchers from fireworks. my vpn is down right now but if you google chinese man creates man made rocket launcher to defend his farm you should be able to see it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Axel
    replied
    To make sure the constitution is fairly applied to all, they should remove all modern firearms from the population and provide everyone with muskets when they turn 18.

    Leave a comment:


  • Uncle_Si
    replied
    Joey wrote: View Post
    I actually kind of like Rand Paul. And I'm fine with his response here. Except he never answers Joys question, being that Obama has tried to go through congress (as Rand admits) and considering congress is owned by lobbyists and big gun companies, its no surprise Obama was able to get absolutely nowhere.

    I'd also like to add this tidbit from the President of the American Constitution Society, where she states among plenty of reasoning:
    "Well, you know, we worked with a group of constitutional law experts who have laid out very clearly that within the understanding of the Constitution and the president’s executive authority, he is clearly empowered to do what he needs to do to make sure our laws are enforced.(Source)"
    Obama seems to be constitutionally within his rights to do this.
    "To make sure our laws are enforced" not "make up my own laws".

    One way to look at it is that the gun lobby owns congress. Another way is that congress is protecting the constitution. Guess it depends what side you're on. And that applies to all special interest groups.

    Just because Obama wants something doesn't mean congress has to do it. Congress and senate are both republican majorities. They represent the people, they aren't there to execute obamas will.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joey
    replied
    Uncle_Si wrote: View Post
    The issue is his illegal executive actions. Rand Paul actually does a decent job of explaining the issue. Watch the video I've linked to. I'd be interested to hear what you guys think.

    Also, it's important to note that constitutionally the States can impose stricter gun laws. The second amendment only applies federally. It can be ammended but there is a process that has to be followed.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P-pSboOoYSg
    I actually kind of like Rand Paul. And I'm fine with his response here. Except he never answers Joys question, being that Obama has tried to go through congress (as Rand admits) and considering congress is owned by lobbyists and big gun companies, its no surprise Obama was able to get absolutely nowhere.

    I'd also like to add this tidbit from the President of the American Constitution Society, where she states among plenty of reasoning:
    "Well, you know, we worked with a group of constitutional law experts who have laid out very clearly that within the understanding of the Constitution and the president’s executive authority, he is clearly empowered to do what he needs to do to make sure our laws are enforced.(Source)"
    Obama seems to be constitutionally within his rights to do this.
    Last edited by Joey; Thu Jan 7th, 2016, 11:28 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Uncle_Si
    replied
    Uncle_Si wrote: View Post
    On these Hammonds. No where in the constitution do they have the right to occupy a federal building. They have every right to protest and the public has every right to disagree or agree with them.

    These guys might be crazy, but they also might feel like they are out of options. That said, I disagree with their method of protest.
    Or Bundys, whoever they are...

    Leave a comment:


  • Uncle_Si
    replied
    On these Hammonds. No where in the constitution do they have the right to occupy a federal building. They have every right to protest and the public has every right to disagree or agree with them.

    These guys might be crazy, but they also might feel like they are out of options. That said, I disagree with their method of protest.

    Leave a comment:


  • Uncle_Si
    replied
    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?
    The issue is his illegal executive actions. Rand Paul actually does a decent job of explaining the issue. Watch the video I've linked to. I'd be interested to hear what you guys think.

    Also, it's important to note that constitutionally the States can impose stricter gun laws. The second amendment only applies federally. It can be ammended but there is a process that has to be followed.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P-pSboOoYSg

    Leave a comment:


  • Bendit
    replied
    slaw wrote: View Post
    Yes, I appreciate the legal distinction between civil rights and civil liberties but in ordinary usage there is no difference between civil rights and civil liberties and they are used interchangeably all the time. And, of course, civil liberties are rights and freedoms by definition. If my usage offends your sensibilities I'll post a micro-aggression warning from now on.

    As for Obama, when the leader of the free world repeatedly says he envies a program of firearm confiscation it means more to people than the views of anonymous internet posters. And I love how opposition to the left's positions is always nefarious in some way - of course there couldn't be any principled opposition to gun control, it's just the NRA and gun manufacturers as evil puppeteers controlling the mindless hordes.

    As for Holder, it appears there is a dispute about whether the protestors were armed or not but there is no dispute he was involved in an illegal occupation of public property. And I pulled the reference from Reason magazine blog post but Reason probably isn't "credible" because it doesn't just regurgitate progressive talking points, so I won't bother posting a link.
    Personally I try to be careful about my arguments and representation of the facts as I see and understand them. No blurring the lines if I can help it. Conflation of two very distinctive aspects of the constitution in a serious discussion we had especially thru the medium we are using is counter productive and confuses the back n forth.

    Pres. Obama I think is well aware of his limitations on the issue. If Sandy Hook could not elicit a modicum of understanding that people have to work together to emeliorate the gun issue and try basic common sense controls (like intelligent trigger controls restricted to the owner)...nothing will it seems. The purity of the word as written way back then and in my/many view that there is a misinterpretation of the amendment written about 200 years ago doesnt seem to matter. Genesis redux forever.

    I understand Thomas Jefferson was all for changing the constitution every 20 years/generation to just keep up with the times. Now there's a thought. Thats too short probably. How about 50 yrs?

    There is no dispute about Holder...only in the minds of those who want to rake the muck for political gain. The same people tried their damnedest to lay some stuff on Obama and came up with zilch and that pissed them off even more so it was character assasination by association.That he is a genuinely good man is something they cant comprehend because they havent experienced a principled person in high office never mind the presidency.

    Ammon Bundy should read this perhaps...

    “The preservation of parks, wilderness, and wildlife has also aided liberty by keeping alive the 19th century sense of adventure and awe with which our forefathers greeted the American West. Many laws protecting environmental quality have promoted liberty by securing property against the destructive trespass of pollution. In our own time, the nearly universal appreciation of these preserved landscapes, restored waters, and cleaner air through outdoor recreation is a modern expression of our freedom and leisure to enjoy the wonderful life that generations past have built for us.”

    Ronald Reagan
    Just so Obama gets a quote in here:

    “The epidemic of gun violence in our country is a crisis. Gun deaths and injuries constitute one of the greatest threats to public health and to the safety of the American people. Every year, more than 30,000 Americans have their lives cut short by guns. Suicides. Domestic violence. Gang shootouts. Accidents. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost brothers and sisters, or buried their own children. We’re the only advanced nation on earth that sees this kind of mass violence with this frequency.”

    Barack Obama
    I actually try to get to conservative web sites occasionally...cannot learn anything substantive from the trashy ones no matter the stripe. Try the NRO, American Spectator and Atlantic (these maybe too mild for you) ...I'd be surprised if they published the Holder "story".
    Last edited by Bendit; Thu Jan 7th, 2016, 08:19 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • slaw
    replied
    Yes, I appreciate the legal distinction between civil rights and civil liberties but in ordinary usage there is no difference between civil rights and civil liberties and they are used interchangeably all the time. And, of course, civil liberties are rights and freedoms by definition. If my usage offends your sensibilities I'll post a micro-aggression warning from now on.

    As for Obama, when the leader of the free world repeatedly says he envies a program of firearm confiscation it means more to people than the views of anonymous internet posters. And I love how opposition to the left's positions is always nefarious in some way - of course there couldn't be any principled opposition to gun control, it's just the NRA and gun manufacturers as evil puppeteers controlling the mindless hordes.

    As for Holder, it appears there is a dispute about whether the protestors were armed or not but there is no dispute he was involved in an illegal occupation of public property. And I pulled the reference from Reason magazine blog post but Reason probably isn't "credible" because it doesn't just regurgitate progressive talking points, so I won't bother posting a link.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bendit
    replied
    slaw wrote: View Post
    Obama has said four times the Australian model of gun control is great. That model was confiscation. That's what he really thinks. It's what he would do if he could but he can't. That's why all you guys want to amend the constitution. It isn't so that you can pass more background check legislation. Let's be honest about it at least.

    The second amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. Those are all civil rights. Not sure what is confusing about that. Seems pretty simple. And I was talking about the civil right to bear arms in the second amendment (not sure why you put it in quotes. it's right there in the bill of rights). All Americans have it. Even ones you don't like.

    What am I defending? If a bunch of guys want to occupy an abandoned bird sanctuary what do I care? I remember when OccupyWallStreet embodied the notion that dissent was the highest form of patriotism? So, these guys are like super patriots, right? And when Obama's former attorney general participated in the armed seizure and occupation of an ROTC building on campus he was just being patriotic. What do I care?
    Your para 1: Obama can say a thousand times how much he likes the Australian law...it only makes it an opinion. He has to deal with the US constitution, settled law and SC decisions on the matter and of course the very real intractability of a party in Congress who are cowed by the NRA and their backers the gun manufacturers. And lets not forget the state legislatures (2/3ds I believe). In short amending their constitution is near impossible. Pipedream. And I didnt say it. Hence his very modest attempt to just tighten the enforcement mechanisms of current laws. That is the reality and it is being twisted. You may visit Ted Cruz' website and see how he depicts the President of the US.

    Your para 2: I regret to inform that you do not understand that there is a distinct difference between "civil rights" and "civil liberties". This link contains a basic layout of the differences...

    http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil...liberties.html

    I like them all only if they do not overtly trample on both liberties AND rights. No fudging allowed and everyone included.

    Your para 3: Oh man you are really digging deep into the mucky world of con. tabloid journos re Holder. To begin with he was a freshman at Columbia in an era which was rife with campus political dissent on race matters and the Vietnam war and participated in extensively by both black and white students. Columbia U also happened to be a hotbed. Tell us was it the Daily Caller or The Blaze you consulted for that bon mot. Minor point but you fail to see the difference in the examples you cite? In neither federal property was commandeered under threat of arms nor violence....or right of passage denied to any to use/travel thru the area so far as I know. No heavy automatic weaponry or road blockades were used.

    I was unaware but a quick reading of more reputable sources say it was a peaceful sit-in protest re Holder, no arms (provide a credible link of discovery and proof if you have it) were involved and peaceably resolved. Do ya think that when Holder went thru his confirmation hearings some Republican/s might not have brought up his "criminal" background? This is getting ridiculous.

    Captain America is a super patriot. Beware of those who thump their chest proclaiming the same. More likely charlatans.

    http://www.snopes.com/eric-holder-pa...f-rotc-office/
    Last edited by Bendit; Thu Jan 7th, 2016, 03:12 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X