I can certainly appreciate Mr. Corbett's challenge when dealing with this subject, especially since the variety and volume of those above the law makes it hard to discuss them all in such a short video. I am a bit troubled, or perhaps disappointed that he chose to use a very notable example of his contention regarding those who are above the law to criticize another of the same ilk. That being a member of the Obama administration throwing the banking industry under the bus. Are the Attorney General's comments true? Very likely so. But considering the ethical and possibly legal conflicts in the Obama administration, it brings to mind two kids being questioned by a parent and one kid telling on the other in hopes that his transgressions wont be noticed.
Of course there's an element of hypocrisy in that they say they are against all of this corruption that they take part in, but that does not change the fact that it's an example of growing tyranny--it's just a smart, hypocritical tyranny as opposed to an honest, brazen one.
Right now, the tyrants are pikers compared to other tyrants who have stacked bodies like cords of wood. However, any petty tyranny that is not opposed sets precedents for itself and grows like a cancer with each successive administration building on what the one before it did.
Go watch Foxfire, or at least clips on youtube, of how indignant Clint Eastwood's character gets at the treatment he gets from the Soviets on his way into the USSR, and now look at the TSA gropefest that has developed in 10 years. Look at the stories of petty tyrants, enabled by their blue shirts and gloves, who act like they are the gods of the airport. Yes, these things are minor on their own, but unfortunately we see the temperature being cranked up at an accelerating speed. If we don't stop this through the political system now, we're not going to recognize the country in 10-20 years...or maybe even 5.
" If we don't stop this through the political system now, we're not going to recognize the country in 10-20 years...or maybe even 5."
Is that when the gun owners are going to take action to stop it?
Don't purposely get me wrong again, I'm not encouraging violence, but you guys do keep telling us that the 2A is our protection against tyranny. It doesn't seem to be working.
My point is, your claims to that effect are bullshit. You guys love guns for your various reasons (insecurity, fear, paranoia, etc.) and make up all that nonsense to justify your love.
So you've shown us the dangers and types of tyranny that we face, but you want to weaken the people even more. I can only conclude that you're either a snivelling and lickspittle coward or someone who hopes to profit from the tyranny that you're not willing to resist.
You started the personal attack first in this thread.
Who knows. I wasn't even thinking about that issue when I wrote that. I was thinking about how I grew up meeting people at the gate at the airport and how we now have the gropefest. About how we used to pride ourselves that we did not have to fear the midnight knock at the door, but now we have no knock raids, national security letters, and indefinite detention. About how we used to have a press that, while liberally biased, did actual investigative journalism, but now we have at least one network for each party that will back up the administration if it retaliates against journalists to suppress stories that hurt the administration. etc. etc.
As for your comments about the Second Amendment, as we've discussed many times before, the idea of armed revolution is something we do not want to be driven to. We've been fighting a losing battle in politics, but we keep hoping we'll manage to turn it around there because nobody with any sense or compassion wants to live through a civil war if it can be avoided.
As for your final comment: you just called me a liar, mentally unstable, and a coward. You, who get so high and mighty about how you will not publish personal attacks and insults have just said that you will not discuss one of my arguments because I'm a liar and a coward and couldn't possibly mean it.
Hypocrite. This is making a personal attack on someone's mental state and character to try and win the argument, just as much as calling someone a tyrant.
So, whst are you saying? You have guns to protect against tyranny, like Kurt, but it's just not yet time to use 'em?
Meanwhile, tyranny is encroaching all around us.
Wouldn't it be a lot easier if you just admitted you like guns, period, and left it at that? Why do you have to try and elevate it to lofty heights of patriotism and honor? Guns aren't even good for self defense. You're more likely to misuse your gun someday than to use it to save your life.
Do I like guns for what they are? Sure. Do I like them for self defense? Yes, and no matter how much you repeat your lie that they aren't good for self defense, it doesn't make it true.
Do I really believe what I'm saying about an armed citizenry being a last ditch defense against tyranny? Yes.
As for your questions about what I'm saying--those have been asked and answered many times. I just gave an answer and you are pretending not to be able to understand it.
If you really want to discuss the matter, make a post about the proper response to living under tyranny ranging from what we see today to what we've seen in the past. Then we can compare thoughts. Otherwise, if you're not going to lay out what you really believe on the subject, then stop boring us with all of this feigned ignorance of and misunderstanding of our positions.
The larger the entity, the more suspicious I get of it, especially when it's controlled by a small number within.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, aren't these they very people whom you said were worthy of the may-issue carry licenses that New York hands out?
I can certainly appreciate Mr. Corbett's challenge when dealing with this subject, especially since the variety and volume of those above the law makes it hard to discuss them all in such a short video.
ReplyDeleteI am a bit troubled, or perhaps disappointed that he chose to use a very notable example of his contention regarding those who are above the law to criticize another of the same ilk. That being a member of the Obama administration throwing the banking industry under the bus.
Are the Attorney General's comments true? Very likely so. But considering the ethical and possibly legal conflicts in the Obama administration, it brings to mind two kids being questioned by a parent and one kid telling on the other in hopes that his transgressions wont be noticed.
Nicely put.
DeleteOf course there's an element of hypocrisy in that they say they are against all of this corruption that they take part in, but that does not change the fact that it's an example of growing tyranny--it's just a smart, hypocritical tyranny as opposed to an honest, brazen one.
ReplyDeleteRight now, the tyrants are pikers compared to other tyrants who have stacked bodies like cords of wood. However, any petty tyranny that is not opposed sets precedents for itself and grows like a cancer with each successive administration building on what the one before it did.
Go watch Foxfire, or at least clips on youtube, of how indignant Clint Eastwood's character gets at the treatment he gets from the Soviets on his way into the USSR, and now look at the TSA gropefest that has developed in 10 years. Look at the stories of petty tyrants, enabled by their blue shirts and gloves, who act like they are the gods of the airport. Yes, these things are minor on their own, but unfortunately we see the temperature being cranked up at an accelerating speed. If we don't stop this through the political system now, we're not going to recognize the country in 10-20 years...or maybe even 5.
" If we don't stop this through the political system now, we're not going to recognize the country in 10-20 years...or maybe even 5."
ReplyDeleteIs that when the gun owners are going to take action to stop it?
Don't purposely get me wrong again, I'm not encouraging violence, but you guys do keep telling us that the 2A is our protection against tyranny. It doesn't seem to be working.
My point is, your claims to that effect are bullshit. You guys love guns for your various reasons (insecurity, fear, paranoia, etc.) and make up all that nonsense to justify your love.
So you've shown us the dangers and types of tyranny that we face, but you want to weaken the people even more. I can only conclude that you're either a snivelling and lickspittle coward or someone who hopes to profit from the tyranny that you're not willing to resist.
DeleteYou started the personal attack first in this thread.
Mike,
DeleteWho knows. I wasn't even thinking about that issue when I wrote that. I was thinking about how I grew up meeting people at the gate at the airport and how we now have the gropefest. About how we used to pride ourselves that we did not have to fear the midnight knock at the door, but now we have no knock raids, national security letters, and indefinite detention. About how we used to have a press that, while liberally biased, did actual investigative journalism, but now we have at least one network for each party that will back up the administration if it retaliates against journalists to suppress stories that hurt the administration. etc. etc.
As for your comments about the Second Amendment, as we've discussed many times before, the idea of armed revolution is something we do not want to be driven to. We've been fighting a losing battle in politics, but we keep hoping we'll manage to turn it around there because nobody with any sense or compassion wants to live through a civil war if it can be avoided.
As for your final comment: you just called me a liar, mentally unstable, and a coward. You, who get so high and mighty about how you will not publish personal attacks and insults have just said that you will not discuss one of my arguments because I'm a liar and a coward and couldn't possibly mean it.
Hypocrite. This is making a personal attack on someone's mental state and character to try and win the argument, just as much as calling someone a tyrant.
So, whst are you saying? You have guns to protect against tyranny, like Kurt, but it's just not yet time to use 'em?
DeleteMeanwhile, tyranny is encroaching all around us.
Wouldn't it be a lot easier if you just admitted you like guns, period, and left it at that? Why do you have to try and elevate it to lofty heights of patriotism and honor? Guns aren't even good for self defense. You're more likely to misuse your gun someday than to use it to save your life.
Mikeb, you keep asking us to admit to things that aren't true.
DeleteDo I like guns for what they are? Sure. Do I like them for self defense? Yes, and no matter how much you repeat your lie that they aren't good for self defense, it doesn't make it true.
DeleteDo I really believe what I'm saying about an armed citizenry being a last ditch defense against tyranny? Yes.
As for your questions about what I'm saying--those have been asked and answered many times. I just gave an answer and you are pretending not to be able to understand it.
If you really want to discuss the matter, make a post about the proper response to living under tyranny ranging from what we see today to what we've seen in the past. Then we can compare thoughts. Otherwise, if you're not going to lay out what you really believe on the subject, then stop boring us with all of this feigned ignorance of and misunderstanding of our positions.