NRA tagged spying against anti-gun groups

[Mojava]

  I  wonder how many Democrat veterans that have given there life for your freedoms would hang there head in shame knowing that you feel they are better off dead. You can't have a debate with someone if you are not willing to listen, Laz you have your mind made up and no amount of proof is going to sway you otherwise. 


 

[bongaroo]

Laz have I once told you "give up your weapons!"  ???

Your justifications for wanting half (I'd wager the nation is fairly evenly split conservative/liberal) of your fellow citizens dieing is appaling.  They have professionals to help you work out those issues, non-violently even!

[Delirium]

The NRA is scared; the anti-gun groups finally have a chance to cause some real change in this country, not only with the change in Washington, but also at the Supreme Court level.

Honestly, I could care less either way. I don't own any guns, don't plan on owning any guns, and consider some of the legal owners of firearms not competant enough to own them. Keep the law as it is, or strip gun owners of their firearms; it just doesn't affect me.

[bongaroo]

The NRA is scared; the anti-gun groups finally have a chance to cause some real change in this country, not only with the change in Washington, but also at the Supreme Court level.

Honestly, I could care less either way. I don't own any guns, don't plan on owning any guns, and consider some of the legal owners of firearms not competant enough to own them. Keep the law as it is, or strip gun owners of their firearms; it just doesn't affect me.

Let's let the responsible folks have 'em and enforce the laws we have to keep them out of the hands of crazies and felons.  Win-win.

[Hornet33]

The NRA is scared; the anti-gun groups finally have a chance to cause some real change in this country, not only with the change in Washington, but also at the Supreme Court level.

Honestly, I could care less either way. I don't own any guns, don't plan on owning any guns, and consider some of the legal owners of firearms not competant enough to own them. Keep the law as it is, or strip gun owners of their firearms; it just doesn't affect me.

And once you've been stripped of your right to own a firearm, what's to stop the government from removing your other rights? Will it affect you if the government can come into your home and search whenever they want for whatever they want without your knowledge or consent and for no probable cause? Will it affect you when the government tells you, you can no longer speak out against the government in any way because if you do it will be considered treason and you'll be put in prison, or worse? Will it affect you when the government takes over ALL media outlets and will only show you what they want you to see?

It's a historic FACT that once a society is disarmed and no longer has the means to resist the government, the government WILL assert more and more control over the population it governs with NO regard to the will or rights of the governed, and it's ALWAYS been justified as for the good of everyone.

Sorry but I'll keep my guns and I'll fight anyone to the death if need be to keep them. I don't care if it's a private citizen or the entire US Government, you want my guns, you better be ready to kill me for them, and if you are, well I'm not going out alone.

[bongaroo]

And once you've been stripped of your right to own a firearm, what's to stop the government from removing your other rights? Will it affect you if the government can come into your home and search whenever they want for whatever they want without your knowledge or consent and for no probable cause? Will it affect you when the government tells you, you can no longer speak out against the government in any way because if you do it will be considered treason and you'll be put in prison, or worse? Will it affect you when the government takes over ALL media outlets and will only show you what they want you to see?

It's a historic FACT that once a society is disarmed and no longer has the means to resist the government, the government WILL assert more and more control over the population it governs with NO regard to the will or rights of the governed, and it's ALWAYS been justified as for the good of everyone.

Sorry but I'll keep my guns and I'll fight anyone to the death if need be to keep them. I don't care if it's a private citizen or the entire US Government, you want my guns, you better be ready to kill me for them, and if you are, well I'm not going out alone.

True!  What scares me is our rights are under attack and we don't seem to care; and we still have our guns!

[lazs2]

mojave... Any veteran that fought for my freedoms I owe a great debt to...  If he now wants to remove my freedoms then that is another thing entirely.   He has no right and is no better than the enemy he fought (for my rights) in the past.

A once great person who did great things and then becomes a child molester is still just a child molester in my opinion.

I have not said I want him dead..  I have not asked that half the population die.. you guys keep making that up.  I have not even asked that a few blue cities be vaporized but...  let's face it.. that is where the metrosexual blue voters hang out.. is the big cities and..  again... lets face it..  anyone who wishes to damage us is going to not waste a perfectly good nuke on rural areas.. they will vaporize blue cities.

vaporized blue cities are no longer full of blue voters who think that my individual rights can be voted away.

lazs

[bongaroo]

Wake up Laz.  The blue voters aren't looking to get you or anyone else vaporized.  Red senators are voting to give up your rights or aren't fighting back hard enough against a Red administration that is just as happy taking them away to protect you "security".

No matter how hard you try to justify it or make it seem insignificant your lack of compassion for your fellow countryman is disgusting.

[moot]

No matter how hard you try to justify it or make it seem insignificant your lack of compassion for your fellow countryman is disgusting.

He's saying he wants others' quality of life to stay up rather than drop as it does under socialist trends.  And IIRC Lazs is nowhere near calling the 'red' politicians ideal.

[Toad]

The blue states elect the blue Presidents that nominate extremely liberal judges to the SC that are approved by the blue Senators.

As a result you get incredibly bad rulings that remove your rights in a fashion no red administration has managed.

Kelo v City of New London, a decision by the liberal wing of the court, allows a city to take the seaside home your grandfather built under eminent domain simply because the city feels it can get more tax revenue by putting a hotel there.

THAT'S what blue gets you... the loss of your property rights.

Gonzales v Raich, a decision by the liberal wing of the court, stretched the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to allow the Feds to restrict the use of medical marijuana even though a particular state has made that use legal.

That's what blue gets you... the loss of your state's sovereignity over minor matters.

Vote blue and get a longer, fatter Federal nanny state shoved up your anal vent. Again.

[bongaroo]

Only giving counter to his argument.  Wouldn't be an argument otherwise.

[bongaroo]

The blue states elect the blue Presidents that nominate extremely liberal judges to the SC that are approved by the blue Senators.

As a result you get incredibly bad rulings that remove your rights in a fashion no red administration has managed.

Kelo v City of New London, a decision by the liberal wing of the court, allows a city to take the seaside home your grandfather built under eminent domain simply because the city feels it can get more tax revenue by putting a hotel there.

THAT'S what blue gets you... the loss of your property rights.

Gonzales v Raich, a decision by the liberal wing of the court, stretched the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to allow the Feds to restrict the use of medical marijuana even though a particular state has made that use legal.

That's what blue gets you... the loss of your state's sovereignity over minor matters.

Vote blue and get a longer, fatter Federal nanny state shoved up your anal vent. Again.

And yet time and time again the land developers who are pushing for your grandparents home on the beach are donating to the republicans and voting Red.   

Another point of issue.  Voting republican is no longer voting for fiscally responsible candidates.  They take your surplus you could use for paying down the national debt and somehow start running the country into even more debt.   

I'd be a republican if they'd get away from that christian evangelical crap and went back to a fiscally responsible platform.

[Toad]

The developers MAY be Republicans. Point is that since the beginning of this nation those people have been held in check by eminent domain. The liberals on the SC removed that check. Blue Pres, Blue Senate... Liberal SC. A liberal SC is the most dangerous factor in the whole US government when it comes to your rights.

A President proposes ideas, the Congress disposes the money and gives life to ideas but the Supreme Court makes ALL the rules. It is, by far, the strongest branch of government.

Neither the Republicans or the Democrats are fiscally responsible. As Laz has often pointed out though, the things the Republicans waste money on usually end IE: Iraq. The things the Democrats spend money on never end and the amount of money needed continually increases: IE: Welfare state.

[bongaroo]

I passed high school social studies, I know how important the SC court is to protecting our constitutional rights.  Claiming that only liberals are a threat to those rights is incorrect.

This is getting way OT. 

have a nice day.

[FrodeMk3]

The blue states elect the blue Presidents that nominate extremely liberal judges to the SC that are approved by the blue Senators.

As a result you get incredibly bad rulings that remove your rights in a fashion no red administration has managed.

Kelo v City of New London, a decision by the liberal wing of the court, allows a city to take the seaside home your grandfather built under eminent domain simply because the city feels it can get more tax revenue by putting a hotel there.

Which court ruled for eminent domain on this, Toad? Was it a city Municipal court?