Odd...why do these gunloons seek to deny the civil rights of others?
Members of the various Tea Party, 9/12, and other freedom-oriented folks in the Atlanta area will be assembling in the vicinity of Georgia State Capitol this coming Wednesday afternoon at 4 pm. We’ll be providing balance to the ravings of the passengers aboard the SEIU Thugbus, which is scheduled to vomit forth its stooges at that same place and time.Then there's this gunloon who'll be 'spending more time with the family:'
If you are within three hours drive of ATL, come join us.
Dan and others from RTC will be there, with the usual accoutrements. As always, each participant is responsible for compliance with all applicable local laws.
In an article published Wednesday on Mother Jones, author Adam Weinstein said Cox continued to advocate the use of deadly force on protesters.
Cox tweeted, "You're damn right I advocate deadly force," in response to a query from Weinstein.
Of course, such gunloonery has a rich and proud history.
Why do anti-gun loons seek to deny the civil rights of others?
ReplyDeleteThis post makes about as much sense as this sentence:
ReplyDeleteAlligators that are purple in color like biscuits because an ostrich can run faster than an emu.
Sort of answers Aztec Red's question:
ReplyDeleteThe reason gun loons like to shout down any dissent is that if their position is carefully examined, it turns out that the Second Amendment was intended to prevent the establishment of a standing army: that is a large military establishment.
The issue was civilian control over the military, not personal ownership of arms. Even the personal right friendly Pennsylvania Dissent makes it clear that was the issue when it is read in its entirety.
Think of how stupid the gunloons sound when it comes out that proper implementation of the Second Amendment right they demand requires a Swiss style military: not some claim of membership in an "unorganised militia".
So, go forth and start talking about how you dislike standing armies and want a Swiss Style Army you "Second Amendment supporters".
@Laci, still spouting same tired BS? You need to re-read history without your blinders on.
ReplyDeleteYou found ONE historical discussion where the founders mentioned the right to keep and bear arms "for defense of themselves and state," followed by a discussion of militia, so you added 1 and 2 together to get 4.
You don't even believe in the existence of basic unalienable rights (you also keep foolishly spelling it inalienable...) and that they are dependent on society to recognize them or they just don't exist. Well, that's your opinion, but certainly not backed by any truth.
And you claim I am ignorant. You aren't nearly as smart as you pretend to be.
...Orygunner...
@Jadegold,
ReplyDeleteCan you identify where the counter-protesters are denying someone's civil rights?
Some of the leftie protesters can get downright violent, I don't blame the counter-protesters for wanting to make sure they can defend themselves, and if wearing arms openly acts as a deterrant to prevent an attack, all the better.
Now if the counter-protesters initiate violence against the SIEU, they've lost their moral standing and abused their rights, and should certainly be held accountable.
However, I see nothing in here about denying the civil rights of others as you falsely claimed.
...Orygunner...
Laci must have the most bruised, busted and bleeding dead horse ever to have been beaten.
ReplyDeleteO: Do you realize how silly you sound?
ReplyDeleteFirst, everyone has the right to protest regardless of which side they're on. When one side brings weapons however--it ceases to be abot free speech and becomes a riot or mob action with the intent to incite and intimidate.
" it turns out that the Second Amendment was intended to prevent the establishment of a standing army: that is a large military establishment."
ReplyDeleteThe SCOTUS pretty much made your opinion as obsolete as the 3/5 Compromise.
"Denying the civil rights of others" is quickly becoming my new theme. You guys have talked about rights so much, for a long time I didn't realize what a leap of faith you have to make to go from "life" to "self-defense" and then to "gun ownership."
ReplyDeleteOnce I realized that, it became clear that you are the ones denying the others their rights. People have a right to live without fear of which one of you guys is gonna act out next with his guns. We have a right to live in a society that isn't continually feeding the criminals with guns that started out lawfully owned by you.
With your gun fanaticism, you deny people those basic human rights.
Bottom line.
ReplyDeleteBringing a gun to a peaceful protest is UNAMERICAN. No two ways about it. Organizing and inciting others to do so is INSANE IN THE BRAIN AND INHERENTLY EVIL. Yet somehow, the union members are the thugs??? I guess once you're that crazy and stupid, pretty much anything goes.
MikeB: “People have a right to live without fear of which one of you guys is gonna act out next with his guns.”
ReplyDeleteAnd everyone’s fear is going to go away if I register and continually re-register my guns? Is there a scientific study that links fear to non-accounted for items?
@Jadegold, you wrote:
ReplyDelete"First, everyone has the right to protest regardless of which side they're on. When one side brings weapons however--it ceases to be abot free speech and becomes a riot or mob action with the intent to incite and intimidate."
Absolutely. SHOW me the PROOF of where the armed protesters are intending to intimidate the other side into not sticking around to protest.
From everything I've read (and please tell me if I missed something specific), they are suggesting wearing firearms to protect THEMSELVES from thuggery like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFeUhSlHiUQ
Or this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hznSuacEN_I
If openly wearing firearms acts as a deterrent to physical attacks, I'm all for it.
They CANNOT use their right to keep and bear arms to intimidate others from exercising their rights, but I fail to see where that's even being suggested.
If there is no actual intent or evidence of intimidation (simply openly wearing a firearm is NOT intimidation in itself), then intimidation is all in their heads,
...Orygunner...
O: You mean like when those two gunloons stomped on that poor woman's head in KY?
ReplyDeleteO: So, I always thought defending oneself with a gun was justified when one is confronted by deadly force. You are saying that a gun is always necessary to protect against the possibility of dissenting views.
ReplyDeleteWow.
...Orygunner...
ReplyDeleteOf course it's about intimidation. Protection? From teachers, civil servants, police and fire personnel, restaurant employees? Out to share their solidarity with state workers that are being threatened with lay-offs by some maniac Tea Party governor? Time to switch coffee brands. And I repeat, it really is about as un-American as it could possibly be. I once had a conservative friend. He always told me, "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will always defend your right to say it."
Old school conservatives like Eisenhower, Nixon or Ford wouldn't even recognize the republican party today. What if the hippies carried guns to their protests in the late 1960s? Then Reagan and other governors probably would have ordered lethal force just like Khaddafi. Remember Kent State? Those guys weren't even armed.
@Jadegold, No, it is inappropriate exercise of the RKBA to prevent others from exercising their freedom of speech.
ReplyDeleteSimply possessing a firearm does not constitute using deadly force. Simply openly carrying a firearm in itself does not constitute intimidation, either. A citizen openly carrying a firearm DOES act as a deterrent to a physical attack, because who is going to attack an openly armed person?
They counter protesters have just as much right (and responsibility) to exercise their freedom of speech as they do their freedom to keep and bear arms, whether you like it or not.
Anyone actually threatening anyone else's safety should be held accountable by the law. This does not include someone's paranoid perception that they are being intimidated or threatened by someone else simply wearing a holstered firearm.
...Orygunner...
@Flying Junior, you wrote:
ReplyDelete"Of course it's about intimidation."
Your opinion. I suggest it is about protection, a deterrent to those "lefties" who would otherwise intimidate, threaten, or harm the counter-protesters...
Unless you show me the ACTIONS (or hell, just show me some legitimate report) of an armed protester actually engaged in intimidating anybody, your opinion is all you got, unbacked by fact.
...Orygunner...
Orygunner, falling back on the old demanding-proof-where-none-exists trick, said, "Absolutely. SHOW me the PROOF of where the armed protesters are intending to intimidate the other side into not sticking around to protest."
ReplyDeleteSince we leave the mind reading to you guys, I'm afraid we cannof provide the proof.
@Mikeb, I ask for proof because, frankly, you have none and you're just guessing. I just simply don't believe your biased guesswork and opinion as truth.
ReplyDeleteYOU guys are the ones claiming to be mind readers, inferring that because someone decides to carry a gun, they are intending to intimidate others from exercising their rights.
Just because the only reason YOU would carry a gun is to intimidate doesn't mean that's the motivation for anyone else.
I haven't had opportunity to go to any political protests or rallies, but if I did, I may openly carry a gun for a few different reasons -
1. To show that I am willing to exercise my rights, because as a free citizen, I can,
2. To deter an opposing protester (or anyone else) from physically attacking me for my difference in beliefs,
3. To represent lawful, responsible gun owners.
I wouldn't carry openly to try and intimidate someone else or scare them into leaving an area, I wouldn't openly carry a firearm to make sure I win any arguments or make people afraid to talk to me.
I know what's in MY heart and mind, and the only one that knows what's in the hearts and minds of the "gunloon brownshirts" that Jadegold posted about are the individuals themselves. I'll agree that it's possible that's why some of them may openly carry, but the only way we can even come close to determining for sure what their intentions are is to examine their words and their actions.
If you can't show any evidence that they are intending to intimidate others to prevent the free exercise of their rights, you are just guessing.
Why don't we work more on getting the truth and the facts?
...Orygunner...