Dear Peace Officer

[Curval]

Originally posted by Hangtime
How'd you manage to slant this into an international pissing contest, anywho??

hehe

Don't be so naive Hang...these threads always end up like that.  Perhaps I (forgive the expression) "jumped the gun".

[wrag]

Originally posted by Curval
Why did Wrag use the term King?  My guess is some vague reference to places like the UK.   It was rather lazsesque.  I notice the UK isn't on your list though....hmmm.

Hmmmm.........

sooooo......... hmmmmm..... you decided to take this personal?  

Never mind that a King was, quite possibly, part responsible for the birth of the U.S.A. with help from a parliment that seemed to largely ignore repeated attempts by then loyal subject seeking redress????

OK! ...    take off with it, REALLY GET GOING with it, here is some more ammo for it.... cause I used the term king or parliment.  Lets see how creative you can get?????

Sad really, but... hmmm... seems kinda liberal?  Responding to the use of the a term or a word like king is far more important then the effort put forward to explain the concept, and thus, understanding the concept is NO longer possible, or needed, or necassary, because now insult has been given.... huh?
Trying to remeber the term for that technique.  Seem to recall someone giving a name to it.  It IMHO is very like the child putting finger in the ears and saying LA LA LA LA very loudy to avoid hearing what is said.

I've come to hold the opinion that their are many people that don't WANT to understand that particular subject.  They use many ways to avoid it.  One that often works is to concentrate on ways to make the person trying to communicate angry or frustrated rather then to listen in a honest attempt to understand, or think upon what is put forward.   Seems genuinely dishonest to me but....  hmmmmmmmm.....  why make input to such a discussion if NO honest effort is going to made to understand?

Is It a FEAR thing?  FEAR that one might actually understand?  And in that understanding there may come anger at their condition?

Is this person corrcet???????????

"According to my observations, mankind are among the most easily tamable and domesticable of all creatures in the animal world. They are readily reducible to submission, so readily conditionable (to coin a word) as to exhibit and almost incredibly enduring patience under restraint and oppression of the most flagrant character. So far are they from displaying any overweening love of freedom that they show a singular contentment with a condition of servitorship, often showing a curious canine pride in it, and again often simply unaware that they are existing in that condition." ~~ Albert Jay Nock; The Memoirs of a Superfluous Man















































OK i put this low because it will either be ignored or seen but please NOTE I put forward questions and made no accusations!!!!!!!!  Wanna see where this goes

That and see if what I put here is actually read word for word or...........

[Lazerus]

To address the original post, the right to keep and bear arms is the one right that guarantees us all of the other ones. The government should fear the populace, not the other way around. There is no desire for revolution or civil war, but there is the ability to execute a successfull revolution because we are all afforded the right to defend ourselves against all threats, foreign and domestic, and a very large percentage of Americans take advantage of this right. We maintain the ability to stop the government from making us slaves, be it an idealogical or physical definition of the term. That is what the ones that argue against the declaration of this right don't or won't understand. It is not a matter of fear, it is not a matter of providing sustinance, it is a matter of keeping those that naturally move to ever increasing restrictions on our citizens in check by the simple fact that we as a people can repeat the history made 230 years ago.

"You know they value your freedom, liberty, and rights as much as their own AND they value highly your right to DISAGREE with them! YOU KNOW WHERE YOU STAND!"

Funny you said that. It made me realize that every single person I know that believes in strict constitutional interpretation also allows discussion without trying to overtalk, ridicule, or insult who they are talking with. Almost every liberal (not democrat) that I know refuses to listen to other ideas, resorting to interruption, insulting, or changing the subject at hand to avoid addressing problems with their beliefs.


Last comment, comparing Islamic extremists to those that profess their loyalty to the constitution of the US in a statement that offers brotherhood but promises a fight if they are wronged is simply stupid.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Lazerus
To address the original post, the right to keep and bear arms is the one right that guarantees us all of the other ones. The government should fear the populace, not the other way around. There is no desire for revolution or civil war, but there is the ability to execute a successfull revolution because we are all afforded the right to defend ourselves against all threats, foreign and domestic, and a very large percentage of Americans take advantage of this right. We maintain the ability to stop the government from making us slaves, be it an idealogical or physical definition of the term. That is what the ones that argue against the declaration of this right don't or won't understand. It is not a matter of fear, it is not a matter of providing sustinance, it is a matter of keeping those that naturally move to ever increasing restrictions on our citizens in check by the simple fact that we as a people can repeat the history made 230 years ago.

[moot]

The blue wizard's hat fell off.

[wrag]

Originally posted by beet1e

Hmmm...........

Well guess we know where this person stands?   Doing his best to change the direction of this thread.  Guess this one doesn't want to discuss or even try to understand?

Sooooo we got someone trying to use one of the above misdirection techniques so they don't have to look and think????

[Curval]

Originally posted by wrag
Never mind that a King was, quite possibly, part responsible for the birth of the U.S.A. with help from a parliment that seemed to largely ignore repeated attempts by then loyal subject seeking redress????

OK! ...    take off with it, REALLY GET GOING with it, here is some more ammo for it.... cause I used the term king or parliment.  Lets see how creative you can get?????

Sad really, but... hmmm... seems kinda liberal?  Responding to the use of the a term or a word like king is far more important then the effort put forward to explain the concept, and thus, understanding the concept is NO longer possible, or needed, or necassary, because now insult has been given.... huh?
Trying to remeber the term for that technique.  Seem to recall someone giving a name to it.  It IMHO is very like the child putting finger in the ears and saying LA LA LA LA very loudy to avoid hearing what is said.

I've come to hold the opinion that their are many people that don't WANT to understand that particular subject.  They use many ways to avoid it.  One that often works is to concentrate on ways to make the person trying to communicate angry or frustrated rather then to listen in a honest attempt to understand, or think upon what is put forward.   Seems genuinely dishonest to me but....  hmmmmmmmm.....  why make input to such a discussion if NO honest effort is going to made to understand?

Is It a FEAR thing?  FEAR that one might actually understand?  And in that understanding there may come anger at their condition?

Is this person corrcet???????????

"According to my observations, mankind are among the most easily tamable and domesticable of all creatures in the animal world. They are readily reducible to submission, so readily conditionable (to coin a word) as to exhibit and almost incredibly enduring patience under restraint and oppression of the most flagrant character. So far are they from displaying any overweening love of freedom that they show a singular contentment with a condition of servitorship, often showing a curious canine pride in it, and again often simply unaware that they are existing in that condition." ~~ Albert Jay Nock; The Memoirs of a Superfluous Man

lol Wrag.

There's no need to repeat yourself.

King = bad
Liberals = bad
Nature of man = bad

I get it.

Run for the hills and arm yourself.  The man is coming.

[Gunthr]

For your consideration:

Mohandas K. Gandhi: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn." Mohandas K. Gandhi, Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, Chapter XXVII, Recruiting Campaign, Page 403, Dover paperback edition, 1983.

[lazs2]

curval..  constitutionalists and libertarians love people but hate humanity... liberals and socialists love humanity but hate people.

this is how it works... those who would have power over others allways start out with "safety"... for your own good.. you will shoot yourself... then heap on a little "cost".. "it will cost everyone for one mans freedom!" (they fail to explain how that after they ban whatever it is they ban..... that costs don't go down)

next.. if you don't kneel yet they throw in...  "for the children"  How can anyone be against some minor loss of freedom to save the children?  (they don't explain why no less children are killed or how the more money they take "for the children" the more dangerous it is for the kids and the dumber and more vicious the kids get)   It takes a villiage...

and... if that doesn't work fast enough.. we gotta do it for the whales or mother earth..  we need to control your lives to save the earth.

lazs

[Lazerus]

I was pretty well lit when I wrote that last post, but after reading it I can't apologise or disagree with the spirit of what I wrote. I just find it ironic that the socialist from over the pond found it laughable. The sad part is the many in my country that feel the same way that he does. Fortunately, the overwhelming silent majority is waking up. Hopefully we will get back on the train of thought that made this country what it is. With any luck we will create a third party that is true to the beliefs of the people of America that make it work.

Change is a good thing. We need it.

[lazs2]

you can't really argue with a socialist because.... they got nothing... if the "for your own good" or "for the children" arguement doesn't faze you then they got no power over you and they got no arguement... If you try to use facts they use "feelings"..  

They got nothing.  

Now, most of em realize it and are all a twitter over the conservation movement... this is their last best chance to destroy all personal rights.

Evil is wanting power over others lives.  Evil is the ban and the buerocrat.  Evil is thinking that people are too stupid and dangerous to run their own lives.

lazs

[StSanta]

Originally posted by J_A_B
In my opinion, the biggest threat to our nation are city dwellers and surburbanites who never get out into the real world and never experience any way of life except their own sheltered existance.  Call them city-slickers, yuppies, whatever you want.
 

Although I agree with your general sentiment (most people are so sheltered that they're never exposed to the harshness life also contains) I gotta disagree with the "real world" bit.


The world they live in is as real as the one you live in. Different aspects of the same thing.

You are biased because of your social legacy, actions and environment, as am I. I find it hard to judge people too harshly for operating according to the same rules as me (although with other variables).

Compared to the average Iraqi, I am pretty sure both of us live sheltered, comfortable lives. I'd still be bold enough to say we live in the real world though.

We try to shape our surroundings so they fit us and our group. This sometimes results in clashes with other groups. The basic mechanics in both groups is the same though.

[StSanta]

Originally posted by lazs2

Evil is wanting power over others lives.  Evil is the ban and the buerocrat.  Evil is thinking that people are too stupid and dangerous to run their own lives.

lazs

Agreed. I'd like to add one thing though.

Evil is indifference as well. If you are indifferent to the suffering of your fellow man, it is a strong indicator of evil I think.

It is as always a balancing act. I will say this though; you cannot leglislate compassion into people. Only thing you can do is to try to create an environment where it is encouraged.


oops double post, my apologies>

[lazs2]

santa.... I would agree with you.   I believe that socialism is evil because of what you said... extorting help from people is evil in that it makes people more selfish...  How many starved in the great depression?   worse economic disaster ever in modern times... the answer?  so far as anyone can tell..... nobody.  People helped each other.

I would not let someone starve but I would not give one penny to the government to "help" people if I didn't have to.

Welfare hasn't made the poor better off... it has just made more poor and made people less likely to help em.  "I gave at the office"

It is interesting to note that per capita, based on income... the red states give far more than the blue ones to charity.

socialism is evil.

lazs

[bj229r]

"Peace Officers"--as long as ya don't confuse state troopers with 'peace officers'.... state troopers serve no purpose other than government revenue enhancement via the pockets of honest people who didnt bother to put their @$#% brakes on during a long downgrade, and didnt notice the **** with the radar gun behind the tree.....lowlifebottomfeeding knuckledraggingsonsabiches... ..but, I digress...back to your thread:mad: