"The list." Right. "The list." Give me a break. And please continue to misrepresent the DHS report. Paranoid hysteria sure can be fun to watch. Also, the last two paragraphs of your post make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Incoherent babblings of the paranoid.
Typical leftist. Getting all ticked off when you only want your side displayed.
You must be a fan of lameinjay's "republican tactics 101" thread.
(Like lameinjay I'm sure you accuse someone while closet committing them yourself)
Read page 5 and you'll be able to read between the lines of being labeled an extremist if you oppose abortion.
(This is besides the anti-abortion activists)
Read the end of page 9 in which they'll be looking into "political, economic, and social factors that drive right-wing extremist radicalization"...I'm sure they will.
More like curb opposing thought and call it studying what "drives right-wing extremist radicalization."
Anyway where's an updated list on left-wing extremist groups?
Ah I forget we're following the politically correct disease here.
Left-wing extremist groups are "American defense or American civil groups". Ah sorry my bad. There are no extremists ever on your side.
OK, page 5. So you read this:
"Rightwing extremists during the 1990s exploited a variety of social issues and political themes to increase group visibility and recruit new members. Prominent among these themes were the militia movement's opposition to gun control efforts, criticism of free trade agreements (particularly those with Mexico), and highlighting perceived government infringement on civil liberties as well as white supremacists' longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion, inter-racial crimes and same sex marriage."
And you interpret THAT as being "labeled an extremist if you oppose abortion"? Really? Wow.
I didn't bother with your page 9 reference. I figured it couldn't be any more utterly ridiculous than your page 5 one.
Also, you do realize that this study was commissioned by the Bush Administration over a year before its release and was conducted by Bush-era appointees and employees of the Department of Homeland Security, don't you?
Man, it's fun proving you wrong over and over and over again.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
I'm sorry pop, but you have no clue what you are talking about. The carrying of them to class if you have a CHL is not.
Originally posted by daeandor:
If you aren't here, you probably don't realize how many guns are on the campuses here anyway, but I can tell you that it would make anti-gunner's heads spin.
Point I'm making is, so in a place like Texas, you don't really think these 21 year olds are bringing guns to class already illegally concealed, even though you say its fully "allowed on campus"? I'm pointing out they are already breaking the law and showing irresponsiblity.
I'm aware it's a bill and the governor would have to sign it into law. I think you and I know students are already carrying guns on campus illegally concealed because of the odds they already have them in a state like Texas where you just walk in and buy some. That would be disengenious to suggest they all are carrying them legally right on their hips over their gym shorts.
And you talk about straw man...
I don't know where to start with you when you read only what you want to read and ignore every other part of a post.
Illegal carry is breaking the law, but it isn't against the law in Texas to own a gun as a student. You do realize that don't you? It is not against the law to own a gun, store it on campus (where authorized), and even use it at shooting ranges in and around campus. Some campuses have rules which prohibit guns in dorms or other unsecure locations, but it is not against the law to own them and store them elsewhere. You act as though students having guns is against the law, when it clearly is not. What is against the law is to carry them, unauthorized, on campus. I really think you need to learn a little more about this subject.
Same people who push this are ,or the same ones who were educated by the people who protested Vietnam on college campuses and for the most part were at Woodstock Free Love and peace out ...LOL
The vast majority of the gun advocates and supporters in this country are from states that were on the losing side of the Civil War which advocated slavery and inequality for women and minorities.
The Civil War is over. It's been over for quite some time. By using "The South" in this way, you're resorting to the same bigoted Archie Bunker bullshit that you constantly call the right out on.
And you talk about straw man... I don't know where to start with you when you read only what you want to read and ignore every other part of a post.
Illegal carry is breaking the law, but it isn't against the law in Texas to own a gun as a student. You do realize that don't you? It is not against the law to own a gun, store it on campus (where authorized), and even use it at shooting ranges in and around campus. Some campuses have rules which prohibit guns in dorms or other unsecure locations, but it is not against the law to own them and store them elsewhere. You act as though students having guns is against the law, when it clearly is not. What is against the law is to carry them, unauthorized, on campus. I really think you need to learn a little more about this subject.
I don't think I was clear enough on what I was saying, that's my fault. I'll try to explain it better now.
I understand that state law in Texas says any qualified adult 21 years old, or 18 if they are in the military can carry. In my state of Pennsylvania, we have concealed carry as well. I have a concealed carry permit and have for over a decade here. I understand this proposed law would change nothing except to widen the area that those qualified adults can carry to. This point is pretty clear.
Where we digress a bit is the picture you painted as a commonplace, almost widely performed action almost daily by many students on Texas campuses.
Students can maybe go to a few colleges if any (very, very, very few) in Texas with a concealed weapon and "check in" his/her weapon. Why?
Even though guns are legal to students as citizens, right now there are not accomodations to "check in" at the vast majority of colleges and universitites for them to allow gun check-ins on their grounds. Even though it's the student's right to carry in Texas with permit, if he showed up at a college, the overwhelming, vast majority of those colleges will tell them to turn around and leave the grounds because they simply do not have the storage space to store guns for students as well as any staff. They may take the weapon once, but they aren't going to allow a daily gun storage while the students go off to Biology III.
The vast majority of the colleges will right now tell students that since its the POLICY of the college to not allow firearms on campus/dorms, that the college will not provide security for something they don't allow in the first place. Universities don't want the legal problem and responsibility of storing these guns and a student would simply be told to go secure it on his own property or someplace else.
Exceptions? Probably something like an ROTC program (but I doubt that still) or a law enforcement-centric program. No way there are letting tons of literature and economic majors to just waltz onto campus and check in firearms. They tell them to leave those home because the university will not be repsonsible for storing their arms.
I think you are mischaracterizing the amount of students bringing guns to school and check them in when you say "If you aren't here, you probably don't realize how many guns are on the campuses here anyway, but I can tell you that it would make anti-gunner's heads spin."
When you say "Some campuses have rules which prohibit guns in dorms or other unsecure locations, but it is not against the law to own them and store them elsewhere", it's obviously misleading. ALL CAMPUSES in Texas have rules which prohibit guns in dorms and other unsecure locations, not "some". I know you know this full well but if you can find a college that actually allows a gun in the dorm or other unsecured location in Texas, I'd be gobstruck. Of course it's legal to store them elsewhere; it'd have to be if they weren't allowed on campus or in dorms, no?
If you read that I am saying that it's illegal for students to possess firearms as Texas citizens, I'm sorry you got that "impression" ("You act as though students having guns is against the law, when it clearly is not.")
As a state cop in NJ, it was legal for me to carry anywhere in the state except a few places: Casinos in Atlantic City, college campuses. airports, etc. Now with colleges, I could obtain special permission from the heads but those cases are rare and most cops just don't bring them to colleges. Why? Because there is no NEED. It's a college and they have their own trained, armed security cops. Same with airports.
With casinos, there was no exception. If I went to a casino I could check in my gun with them and then go inside. Guns were not permitted on the GAMING FLOOR but I could be on their parking lot grounds legally. Whenever I checked my gun in they took it. But getting it back was always a long, time consuming wait for the most part so I just didn't bring it to there. They were not denying my right to carry, but just said "not here".
This Texas thing is a really retarded bill, because most college and university students aren't even 21 years old for the most part to begin with. By the time the majority of students reached the age where they would be able to carry on a Texas campus, they'd almost all be out of college in the first place so I have no idea why this is done other than "Because we're Texas and we can" flexing of legal muscles as a message to... someone, which is a dumb reason to make a law.
Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe Originally posted by popinjay
Originally posted by Scubie67
Same people who push this are ,or the same ones who were educated by the people who protested Vietnam on college campuses and for the most part were at Woodstock Free Love and peace out ...LOL
The vast majority of the gun advocates and supporters in this country are from states that were on the losing side of the Civil War which advocated slavery and inequality for women and minorities.
The Civil War is over. It's been over for quite some time. By using "The South" in this way, you're resorting to the same bigoted Archie Bunker bullshit that you constantly call the right out on. BTW, you need to look up Goodwin's Law. Remember kids: Latte Liberals are just Dittoheads with a designer label.
Hmm.
The post you link above shows me saying NOTHING about "the South".
As a matter of fact, "the South" doesn't come into the thread by me or the poster I was responding to, but you claim I resorted to using "the South" in a "Archie Bunker bullshit" way.
What law did you just break? The "Failure to Read Posts Properly to Fling Wild-eyed Accusations Law" or the "Liar, Liar Pants on Fire Law"?
These were the Confederate states during the Civil War:
South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, North Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, and Tennessee.
These states had dual governments or were border states:
Kentucky, Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, and Missouri. They had portions that advocated slavery, inequality for women and minorities, some of them to a large extent. All of those aren't "southern".
Now, did the vast majority of states that were on the losing side of the Civil War advocate slavery, inequality for women and other minorities like Indians, Chinese and other immigrants or not? It is perfectly factual and relevant to the post I was responding to, so since when is pointing out a historical fact bigoted?
Race card. Amateurishly played.
Interesting that the person who actually used "the South" in this thread, you conspicuously say nothing about. Why is that? You didn't see it, right?
posted by Narug:
(One mistake the Confederacy made during the 2nd revolution was the South didn't drop slavery long before and why our federal government has too much power now)
What do they do when you attend those Republican teabagger rallies? Pass out straw bales the minute you guys come in the door or what?
Same people who push this are ,or the same ones who were educated by the people who protested Vietnam on college campuses and for the most part were at Woodstock Free Love and peace out ...LOL
The vast majority of the gun advocates and supporters in this country are from states that were on the losing side of the Civil War which advocated slavery and inequality for women and minorities. Quite a few of these same states house the vast majority of Neo-nazis, American terrorists and conspiracy theorists who think the government has FEMA camps ready to enslave citizens and thinks zombies are going to attack us.
Jawohl und Sieg Heil?
Interesting point you can make out of conjecture, huh? I think I'd choose the free peace and love over racist views anyday.
I think you just proved to us all that you really do NOT know much about what you speak of.
Give me a gun, I'll stay free. Take my gun and it's just a matter of time until I'm a slave. simple logic.
Same people who push this are ,or the same ones who were educated by the people who protested Vietnam on college campuses and for the most part were at Woodstock
Free Love and peace out ...LOL
The vast majority of the gun advocates and supporters in this country are from states that were on the losing side of the Civil War which advocated slavery and inequality for women and minorities.
The Civil War is over. It's been over for quite some time. By using "The South" in this way, you're resorting to the same bigoted Archie Bunker bullshit that you constantly call the right out on.
Remember kids: Latte Liberals are just Dittoheads with a designer label.
Hmm.
The post you link above shows me saying NOTHING about "the South".
...
.... go on ....
As a matter of fact, "the South" doesn't come into the thread by me or the poster I was responding to, but you claim I resorted to using "the South" in a "Archie Bunker bullshit" way.
What law did you just break? The "Failure to Read Posts Properly to Fling Wild-eyed Accusations Law" or the "Liar, Liar Pants on Fire Law"?
These were the Confederate states during the Civil War:
South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, North Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, and Tennessee.
These states had dual governments or were border states:
Kentucky, Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, and Missouri. They had portions that advocated slavery, inequality for women and minorities, some of them to a large extent. All of those aren't "southern".
Now, did the vast majority of states that were on the losing side of the Civil War advocate slavery, inequality for women and other minorities like Indians, Chinese and other immigrants or not? It is perfectly factual and relevant to the post I was responding to, so since when is pointing out a historical fact bigoted?
So all gun owners are also pro-slavery? ALL gun owners are misygonists? ALL gun owners are jingoist? Those are some pretty sweeping generalizations you got there. Maybe you aren't familiar with what the word bigot means...
Main Entry:
big·ot Listen to the pronunciation of bigot
Pronunciation: ?bi-g?t
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Race card. Amateurishly played.
uh... yeah... Especially since "The South" is a region and not a race..... en stuff....
Interesting that the person who actually used "the South" in this thread, you conspicuously say nothing about. Why is that? You didn't see it, right?
posted by Narug:
(One mistake the Confederacy made during the 2nd revolution was the South didn't drop slavery long before and why our federal government has too much power now)
What do they do when you attend those Republican teabagger rallies? Pass out straw bales the minute you guys come in the door or what?
Let's not tap dance around this. You were making an anology based on something that has no relation to the present politics of the United States. You were trying to slander all gun owners as backwoods hicks and conveniently ignoring the fact that there are legal gun owners in every U.S. state and city from New York to Los Angles.
And now, you're trying to weasel out of your own narrow, muppety hyperbole.
Let's not tap dance around this. You were making an anology based on something that has no relation to the present politics of the United States. You were trying to slander all gun owners as backwoods hicks and conveniently ignoring the fact that there are legal gun owners in every U.S. state and city from New York to Los Angles. And now, you're trying to weasel out of your own narrow, muppety hyperbole. Again, Latte Liberals = Dittoheads in Hot Topic.
Let's recap.
You claim I said something I didn't and was proven I didn't. You lied badly to win an internet point.
Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because slander is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. If the statement is made via broadcast media -- for example, over the radio or on TV -- it is considered libel, rather than slander, because the statement has the potential to reach a very wide audience.
This you did in front of the MMORPG community without shame.
And now you accuse me of slander towards no person in particular but a group of people, not a person when the post was clearly hyperbole to answer someone else's hyberbole as an example. This all the while the example I gave was true. That's really all we need to know about your post, isn't it?
So, which one do you think YOU actually committed in this thread already? Slander or libel?
Let's not tap dance around this. You were making an anology based on something that has no relation to the present politics of the United States. You were trying to slander all gun owners as backwoods hicks and conveniently ignoring the fact that there are legal gun owners in every U.S. state and city from New York to Los Angles.
And now, you're trying to weasel out of your own narrow, muppety hyperbole.
Again, Latte Liberals = Dittoheads in Hot Topic.
Let's recap.
You claim I said something I didn't and was proven I didn't. You lied badly to win an internet point.
Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because slander is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. If the statement is made via broadcast media -- for example, over the radio or on TV -- it is considered libel, rather than slander, because the statement has the potential to reach a very wide audience.
This you did in front of the MMORPG community without shame.
And now you accuse me of slander towards no person in particular but a group of people, not a person when the post was clearly hyperbole to answer someone else's hyberbole
Full stop. This is how we got here. Looking back with this sentence in mind, I see it. I didn't see it before. But definitely see it now.
<sigh>
I'm just really tired of the "North vs. South" shit when it comes to this issue. Framing gun rights as a... Confederate (?) thing is very much similar to calling someone a Nazi. I realize that it is popular shorthand to portray someone as stupid or backward with a southern accent or "redneck" modes of dress and conduct, but that is no more appropriate than when Rush Limgaugh points out how Jesse Jackson looks like a composite of criminal mugshots. (note: I'm not making that up, he really said that.) Seriously, it's an ad hominum attack and lacks anything even remotely resembling intellectual integrity.
In a different thread, I pointed out that some people use guns to hunt food with and then you said something to the effect of "not everyone lives in a Louissiana swamp with the sound of banjos in the distance" or some shit like that. I didn't grow up in an environment such as you described, but there were people, my own family included, that wouldn't have gotten through the year if they couldn't hunt or fish for food. The fact that you would write off that kind of poverty with such a completely callouse and elitist comment speaks volumes of your true political motivations.
As a working class liberal, I sometimes find it very hard to reconcile the things I aggree with other liberal about with the patronizing and condenscending motivations that drive the politics many upper middle class liberals. The latte and poetry reading crowd does politics for ego. The Union man does politics for blood.
As I said earlier in this I am definitely a Centrist by US standards at least, in European standards I'd be a Conservative, lol. But I lean more heavily towards the GOP side of things now in part based on the disgustingly elitist attitudes so many Liberals take.
Originally posted by daeandor Illegal carry is breaking the law, but it isn't against the law in Texas to own a gun as a student. You do realize that don't you? It is not against the law to own a gun, store it on campus (where authorized), and even use it at shooting ranges in and around campus. Some campuses have rules which prohibit guns in dorms or other unsecure locations, but it is not against the law to own them and store them elsewhere. You act as though students having guns is against the law, when it clearly is not. What is against the law is to carry them, unauthorized, on campus. I really think you need to learn a little more about this subject.
This is the same as in Michigan.
As a student you are allowed to own a legally registered firearm. You are not allowed to have it in your dorm room, or carry it around campus. You are allowed to store it with the Campus Police, and may check the firearm out and take it off campus.
Many students do take firearms up to school during the fall for the purpose of deer hunting, especially if they attend school in the more rural areas of Northern and Western Michigan. I do not recall ever hearing of one of those students checking out his firearm and using it on campus, it is that infrequent. Frankly, they know the rules, and they follow them.
Texas law may allow students to carry firearms into the classroom, around the dorms, and into the dining commons. I do not forsee University rules changing to allow it.
My oversensationalism brought about that miscommunication pop. I guess I don't really disagree with you in premise, but I feel that if the legislature wants to pass this bill, so be it. In the end I have a feeling there are going to be some groundrules set by campuses which will make this significantly less "wild west" than the left is making it out to be.
A couple things to understand about my position though are: 1) I support the TX legislature attempting to pass the law, and support the law if passed. 2) I would have never proposed such a law myself. You said it before, I personally don't feel that the majority of gun owners are as responsible as I. I've also said I don't feel 21 year olds are responsible enough to handle carrying a gun on campus. Now, my comments were in regard to average "gun owners" not CHL holders, because they are not average in my opinion. The facts are, in Texas, the number of CHL holders involved in criminal acts is surprisingly small, even for my pro-gun thought process. So, my conclusion is that CHL holders have proven themselves much more capable than even I would have predicted. Therefore, if the TX State Legislature wants to expand the privilages associated with having a CHL based on that data, then I support them.
Okay, so I have said what needed to be said in support. However, I don't like laws that are passed as a knee-jerk reaction. So on that front, I disagree with the proposed law. I also have never agreed with laws which get the blanket statement "it will make you safer." Anytime I see that statement the hair on the back of my neck sticks up.
I'm just really tired of the "North vs. South" shit when it comes to this issue. Framing gun rights as a... Confederate (?) thing is very much similar to calling someone a Nazi. I realize that it is popular shorthand to portray someone as stupid or backward with a southern accent or "redneck" modes of dress and conduct, but that is no more appropriate than when Rush Limgaugh points out how Jesse Jackson looks like a composite of criminal mugshots. (note: I'm not making that up, he really said that.) Seriously, it's an ad hominum attack and lacks anything even remotely resembling intellectual integrity. In a different thread, I pointed out that some people use guns to hunt food with and then you said something to the effect of "not everyone lives in a Louissiana swamp with the sound of banjos in the distance" or some shit like that. I didn't grow up in an environment such as you described, but there were people, my own family included, that wouldn't have gotten through the year if they couldn't hunt or fish for food. The fact that you would write off that kind of poverty with such a completely callouse and elitist comment speaks volumes of your true political motivations. As a working class liberal, I sometimes find it very hard to reconcile the things I aggree with other liberal about with the patronizing and condenscending motivations that drive the politics many upper middle class liberals. The latte and poetry reading crowd does politics for ego. The Union man does politics for blood.
True, I hate them as well.
Usually, they are brought up when someone is not sure exactly how to defend a point because they learned that point from listening from someone else. They never had to examine the whole logical thought line of progression responsibly that goes along with a position. (not saying this about you)
Ex: Someone says Obama is this/that on the radio. So a guy hears it and says "Yeah, that sounds right." So then he meets someone with a different opinion who is constantly rebutting his argument. The problem is, the Obama basher didn't form his own opinion: it was GIVEN to him by the radio guy and he has no idea how to make it work because he's not as nuanced as the radio host was. And he's getting eaten alive and starts going off topic and hijacking threads.
It's kind of like when a teacher thinks a kid who cheated and has the right answer, and then says "Okay, show me how you arrived at this answer, because I cannot see how you did based on what you wrote." That kid is busted because he has no idea how to get there from here.
On the 'net, people start attacking because they were made to look silly. Sometimes the person does it on purpose, sometimes they don't but the guy thinks he meant it. So from that point on, he only attacks no matter what is said, however factual. Then it's insults and death threats, lol. It's a real shame but this is how politics are done in this country and the people who listen to it just rehash what they were told, as if it's true.
The shootings on college campuses in the United States are a rarity. I think there is about 4,100 colleges in the United States. There hasn't even been 1% of that in shootings on them since colleges were even invented, but yet here's a bill where they want to allow guns there because they "want students to defend themselves." Weird. A better argument to keep "them safe" would be to not allow guns to be had at all by the common public, which is a much better position. It's like getting pregnant; yeah, you can use a rubber or birth control, but the most effective way is simply to not have sex in the first place.
If you read this thread, you'll clearly see who actually was reading the whole thing, and who just jumped in the middle and formed opinions based on one post and dislike of people personally. I have no idea why someone wants to post in a thread they didn't really read but.. it happens.
OK, page 5. So you read this: "Rightwing extremists during the 1990s exploited a variety of social issues and political themes to increase group visibility and recruit new members. Prominent among these themes were the militia movement's opposition to gun control efforts, criticism of free trade agreements (particularly those with Mexico), and highlighting perceived government infringement on civil liberties as well as white supremacists' longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion, inter-racial crimes and same sex marriage." And you interpret THAT as being "labeled an extremist if you oppose abortion"? Really? Wow. I didn't bother with your page 9 reference. I figured it couldn't be any more utterly ridiculous than your page 5 one. Also, you do realize that this study was commissioned by the Bush Administration over a year before its release and was conducted by Bush-era appointees and employees of the Department of Homeland Security, don't you? Also, the left-wing extremist report from the DHS was released January 26 and can be found here: http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/leftwing.pdf Man, it's fun proving you wrong over and over and over again.
Yeah I got that from reading that. Just like I got that having an alternate opinion on NAFTA makes you an extremist.
(All about the recruitment wording part)
page 6: "Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to work at significantly lower wages. They also opposed free trade agreements, arguing that these arrangements resulted in Americans losing jobs to countries such as Mexico"
It couldn't be having an opinion that immigration should be done legally at an absorbable rate. Under their wording everyone is a rightwing extremist who opposes mass illegal immigration at a rate that can't be absorbed.
(Illegal immigrants can have lower wages so whatever)
Nap's saying one has been recruited by extremists groups by your very quote. Sorry you don't see it.
May hap on the left wing report but still doesn't negate things.
Military vets were still singled out in the rightwing report and aren't mentioned in the left as far as I can tell.
Anyway the rightwing report was released in April so call me crazy if Nap had time to influence it since her reign of terror began in January.
Lastly I had to listen for 8 years with the "Bush did this for oil" garbage and that "the government did 9/11" crap. At least I have words from a government report to actually look at and not a oil contract that didn't go to the US.
If that's what you got from reading that, then obviously reading comprehension is not your strong suit.
Napolitano's "reign of terror"? Wow. The unfounded rightwing paranoia is strong with this one.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
Interesting that the person who actually used "the South" in this thread, you conspicuously say nothing about. Why is that? You didn't see it, right?
posted by Narug:
(One mistake the Confederacy made during the 2nd revolution was the South didn't drop slavery long before and why our federal government has too much power now)
What do they do when you attend those Republican teabagger rallies? Pass out straw bales the minute you guys come in the door or what?
Earlier in this thread I said "one" solution to school shooting was to deal with bullying but no one caught that or acknowledged it in this thread. Ignorance is bliss.
Page 3 you mentioned the losing side of the civil war and most gun supporters being from there. The losing side was the South and its allies and the winning side was the North and its allies. Yeah I would've layed that out but I thought saying "the South" would get the picture.
Anyway with the South I said "one" mistake not the "only" mistake.
With the abolishing of slavery they probably would've received a proper backing of Europe despite the blockade. (Would've had to do this long before the war though) At the least more allies would've been willing to support a rebellion that didn't have suppression of races as one of its cornerstones.
There were anti-war sentiments, draft dodging on both sides, and election struggles in the north.
Yes the cooperation of military actions between the Southern States were problematic but so were the competency of military leaders and lack of firearm experience on the northern side.
(Least the beginning of the war)
My opinion on too much federal power still stands anyway.
Anyway Kobie mentioned on page 3 the South first in this thread and I'm tired of the South getting beat up all the time at this site.
Believe what you want though because I'm done here just like your side wants.
P.S. Anyone commenting on the "gun culture" like Kobie did in this thread isn't shopping at outfitters.
P.S. #2 Tea parties are about protesting taxes as was done in the early days over tax without representation so do the attenders feel they are no longer represented.
Perhaps I shouldn't have pinned it all on the south -- there's plenty of gun nuts here in the rural areas of upstate NY as well.
The rest of your post is pure drivel.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
well put Jimmy_Scythe As I said earlier in this I am definitely a Centrist by US standards at least, in European standards I'd be a Conservative, lol. But I lean more heavily towards the GOP side of things now in part based on the disgustingly elitist attitudes so many Liberals take.
So you go GOP just to spite other liberals instead of voting on the issues?
And I hear the elitist argument about liberals all the time. I think a lot of people don't know the exact meaning of the term. If they did, they'd realize the right does their fair share. Such as tax breaks for the wealthy.
I said I am a Centrist overall and right now I lean more to the right, leaning to the right and always voting with the right are two different things, lol. Given the fact I am a Centrist I'd say means I vote according to my own beliefs and follow neither parties "line" completely. I am very often disgusted by the elitist attitudes some very left leaning liberals display. Used to be I was far more disgusted with the far right but the left is outdoing them nowadays.
You must have misread what I said. I said I am a Centrist overall and right now I lean more to the right, leaning to the right and always voting with the right are two different things, lol. Given the fact I am a Centrist I'd say means I vote according to my own beliefs and follow neither parties "line" completely. I am very often disgusted by the elitist attitudes some very left leaning liberals display. Used to be I was far more disgusted with the far right but the left is outdoing them nowadays.
So what type of elitist attitudes are you talking about that can't be applied to the far right as well?
Rather than acknowledge the Left has shown a lot of bad form you want to go right back into the whole the Right even is worse thing, eh?
Bias is a funny thing it blinds people entirely if they agree with said bias. Not saying that you do but you seem to be very left and see the right as nothing but pure evil and something that should be eradicated?
The GOPs biggest problem is well noted. They moved away from being the party of inclusion and turned into the party of religious zealotry and taking care of the rich too often. That doesn't mean that a lot of conservative ideas are not good ideas. All things in moderation and with thought and balance to them is always best. We need both parties and we need all sides of the spectrum. There is too much lefty sentiment lately that now they are on TOP and omg they need to crush the Republican party completely, utterly, destroy them. We are all on the same side, we are all Americans and we need both.
Either side can be too extreme and I tend to like neither example of extremism to be honest.
Rather than acknowledge the Left has shown a lot of bad form you want to go right back into the whole the Right even is worse thing, eh? Bias is a funny thing it blinds people entirely if they agree with said bias. Not saying that you do but you seem to be very left and see the right as nothing but pure evil and something that should be eradicated? The GOPs biggest problem is well noted. They moved away from being the party of inclusion and turned into the party of religious zealotry and taking care of the rich too often. That doesn't mean that a lot of conservative ideas are not good ideas. All things in moderation and with thought and balance to them is always best. We need both parties and we need all sides of the spectrum. There is too much lefty sentiment lately that now they are on TOP and omg they need to crush the Republican party completely, utterly, destroy them. We are all on the same side, we are all Americans and we need both. Either side can be too extreme and I tend to like neither example of extremism to be honest.
You used the elitist ways of the left as your reason for recently leaning right. So of course I want to point out that the Right have their elitist ways too. That would harm your reasoning for leaning right.
And yes, I am very biased, but only initially. If I'm introduced to a new bill and I see that liberals are supporting it and conservatives aren't, I'm going to assume that it's something that I would support. I assume that until I've actually researched the bill and come up with my own opinion.
There's no way to be completely unbiased. You tend to want to agree with those who you've agreed with a lot in the past. It makes sense.
And yes, I do want some of what conservatism is to be eradicated. Mostly the religious/moral code aspects of it.
Same people who push this are ,or the same ones who were educated by the people who protested Vietnam on college campuses and for the most part were at Woodstock Free Love and peace out ...LOL
The vast majority of the gun advocates and supporters in this country are from states that were on the losing side of the Civil War which advocated slavery and inequality for women and minorities. Quite a few of these same states house the vast majority of Neo-nazis, American terrorists and conspiracy theorists who think the government has FEMA camps ready to enslave citizens and thinks zombies are going to attack us.
Jawohl und Sieg Heil?
Interesting point you can make out of conjecture, huh? I think I'd choose the free peace and love over racist views anyday.
I think you just proved to us all that you really do NOT know much about what you speak of.
Give me a gun, I'll stay free. Take my gun and it's just a matter of time until I'm a slave. simple logic.
That's actually idiotic. Just because you don't have a gun doesn't mean you're a slave. Could you be any more alarmist?
Same people who push this are ,or the same ones who were educated by the people who protested Vietnam on college campuses and for the most part were at Woodstock Free Love and peace out ...LOL
The vast majority of the gun advocates and supporters in this country are from states that were on the losing side of the Civil War which advocated slavery and inequality for women and minorities. Quite a few of these same states house the vast majority of Neo-nazis, American terrorists and conspiracy theorists who think the government has FEMA camps ready to enslave citizens and thinks zombies are going to attack us.
Jawohl und Sieg Heil?
Interesting point you can make out of conjecture, huh? I think I'd choose the free peace and love over racist views anyday.
I think you just proved to us all that you really do NOT know much about what you speak of.
Give me a gun, I'll stay free. Take my gun and it's just a matter of time until I'm a slave. simple logic.
That's actually idiotic. Just because you don't have a gun doesn't mean you're a slave. Could you be any more alarmist?
Closing Gitmo WILL end up killing Americans.
Increasing any taxes WILL bankrupt the entire country.
Allowing gays to marry WILL be the death of the American family.
Wanting to pull out of Iraq means you hate America.
If we don't have guns, we'll all be slaves.
Fear, extreme exaggeration, and ignorance. It's how the right functions.
I've never owned a gun and probably never will. Maybe I should start practicing my slave labor songs.
Comments
Typical leftist. Getting all ticked off when you only want your side displayed.
You must be a fan of lameinjay's "republican tactics 101" thread.
(Like lameinjay I'm sure you accuse someone while closet committing them yourself)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/14/homeland-security-report_n_186834.html
Read page 5 and you'll be able to read between the lines of being labeled an extremist if you oppose abortion.
(This is besides the anti-abortion activists)
Read the end of page 9 in which they'll be looking into "political, economic, and social factors that drive right-wing extremist radicalization"...I'm sure they will.
More like curb opposing thought and call it studying what "drives right-wing extremist radicalization."
Anyway where's an updated list on left-wing extremist groups?
Ah I forget we're following the politically correct disease here.
Left-wing extremist groups are "American defense or American civil groups". Ah sorry my bad. There are no extremists ever on your side.
OK, page 5. So you read this:
"Rightwing extremists during the 1990s exploited a variety of social issues and political themes to increase group visibility and recruit new members. Prominent among these themes were the militia movement's opposition to gun control efforts, criticism of free trade agreements (particularly those with Mexico), and highlighting perceived government infringement on civil liberties as well as white supremacists' longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion, inter-racial crimes and same sex marriage."
And you interpret THAT as being "labeled an extremist if you oppose abortion"? Really? Wow.
I didn't bother with your page 9 reference. I figured it couldn't be any more utterly ridiculous than your page 5 one.
Also, you do realize that this study was commissioned by the Bush Administration over a year before its release and was conducted by Bush-era appointees and employees of the Department of Homeland Security, don't you?
Also, the left-wing extremist report from the DHS was released January 26 and can be found here: http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/leftwing.pdf
Man, it's fun proving you wrong over and over and over again.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
Point I'm making is, so in a place like Texas, you don't really think these 21 year olds are bringing guns to class already illegally concealed, even though you say its fully "allowed on campus"? I'm pointing out they are already breaking the law and showing irresponsiblity.
I'm aware it's a bill and the governor would have to sign it into law. I think you and I know students are already carrying guns on campus illegally concealed because of the odds they already have them in a state like Texas where you just walk in and buy some. That would be disengenious to suggest they all are carrying them legally right on their hips over their gym shorts.
And you talk about straw man...
I don't know where to start with you when you read only what you want to read and ignore every other part of a post.
Illegal carry is breaking the law, but it isn't against the law in Texas to own a gun as a student. You do realize that don't you? It is not against the law to own a gun, store it on campus (where authorized), and even use it at shooting ranges in and around campus. Some campuses have rules which prohibit guns in dorms or other unsecure locations, but it is not against the law to own them and store them elsewhere. You act as though students having guns is against the law, when it clearly is not. What is against the law is to carry them, unauthorized, on campus. I really think you need to learn a little more about this subject.
The vast majority of the gun advocates and supporters in this country are from states that were on the losing side of the Civil War which advocated slavery and inequality for women and minorities.
The Civil War is over. It's been over for quite some time. By using "The South" in this way, you're resorting to the same bigoted Archie Bunker bullshit that you constantly call the right out on.
BTW, you need to look up Goodwin's Law.
Remember kids: Latte Liberals are just Dittoheads with a designer label.
I don't think I was clear enough on what I was saying, that's my fault. I'll try to explain it better now.
I understand that state law in Texas says any qualified adult 21 years old, or 18 if they are in the military can carry. In my state of Pennsylvania, we have concealed carry as well. I have a concealed carry permit and have for over a decade here. I understand this proposed law would change nothing except to widen the area that those qualified adults can carry to. This point is pretty clear.
Where we digress a bit is the picture you painted as a commonplace, almost widely performed action almost daily by many students on Texas campuses.
Students can maybe go to a few colleges if any (very, very, very few) in Texas with a concealed weapon and "check in" his/her weapon. Why?
Even though guns are legal to students as citizens, right now there are not accomodations to "check in" at the vast majority of colleges and universitites for them to allow gun check-ins on their grounds. Even though it's the student's right to carry in Texas with permit, if he showed up at a college, the overwhelming, vast majority of those colleges will tell them to turn around and leave the grounds because they simply do not have the storage space to store guns for students as well as any staff. They may take the weapon once, but they aren't going to allow a daily gun storage while the students go off to Biology III.
The vast majority of the colleges will right now tell students that since its the POLICY of the college to not allow firearms on campus/dorms, that the college will not provide security for something they don't allow in the first place. Universities don't want the legal problem and responsibility of storing these guns and a student would simply be told to go secure it on his own property or someplace else.
Exceptions? Probably something like an ROTC program (but I doubt that still) or a law enforcement-centric program. No way there are letting tons of literature and economic majors to just waltz onto campus and check in firearms. They tell them to leave those home because the university will not be repsonsible for storing their arms.
I think you are mischaracterizing the amount of students bringing guns to school and check them in when you say "If you aren't here, you probably don't realize how many guns are on the campuses here anyway, but I can tell you that it would make anti-gunner's heads spin."
When you say "Some campuses have rules which prohibit guns in dorms or other unsecure locations, but it is not against the law to own them and store them elsewhere", it's obviously misleading. ALL CAMPUSES in Texas have rules which prohibit guns in dorms and other unsecure locations, not "some". I know you know this full well but if you can find a college that actually allows a gun in the dorm or other unsecured location in Texas, I'd be gobstruck. Of course it's legal to store them elsewhere; it'd have to be if they weren't allowed on campus or in dorms, no?
If you read that I am saying that it's illegal for students to possess firearms as Texas citizens, I'm sorry you got that "impression" ("You act as though students having guns is against the law, when it clearly is not.")
As a state cop in NJ, it was legal for me to carry anywhere in the state except a few places: Casinos in Atlantic City, college campuses. airports, etc. Now with colleges, I could obtain special permission from the heads but those cases are rare and most cops just don't bring them to colleges. Why? Because there is no NEED. It's a college and they have their own trained, armed security cops. Same with airports.
With casinos, there was no exception. If I went to a casino I could check in my gun with them and then go inside. Guns were not permitted on the GAMING FLOOR but I could be on their parking lot grounds legally. Whenever I checked my gun in they took it. But getting it back was always a long, time consuming wait for the most part so I just didn't bring it to there. They were not denying my right to carry, but just said "not here".
This Texas thing is a really retarded bill, because most college and university students aren't even 21 years old for the most part to begin with. By the time the majority of students reached the age where they would be able to carry on a Texas campus, they'd almost all be out of college in the first place so I have no idea why this is done other than "Because we're Texas and we can" flexing of legal muscles as a message to... someone, which is a dumb reason to make a law.
"TO MICHAEL!"
The vast majority of the gun advocates and supporters in this country are from states that were on the losing side of the Civil War which advocated slavery and inequality for women and minorities.
The Civil War is over. It's been over for quite some time. By using "The South" in this way, you're resorting to the same bigoted Archie Bunker bullshit that you constantly call the right out on.
BTW, you need to look up Goodwin's Law.
Remember kids: Latte Liberals are just Dittoheads with a designer label.
Hmm.
The post you link above shows me saying NOTHING about "the South".
As a matter of fact, "the South" doesn't come into the thread by me or the poster I was responding to, but you claim I resorted to using "the South" in a "Archie Bunker bullshit" way.
What law did you just break? The "Failure to Read Posts Properly to Fling Wild-eyed Accusations Law" or the "Liar, Liar Pants on Fire Law"?
These were the Confederate states during the Civil War:
South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, North Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, and Tennessee.
These states had dual governments or were border states:
Kentucky, Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, and Missouri. They had portions that advocated slavery, inequality for women and minorities, some of them to a large extent. All of those aren't "southern".
Now, did the vast majority of states that were on the losing side of the Civil War advocate slavery, inequality for women and other minorities like Indians, Chinese and other immigrants or not? It is perfectly factual and relevant to the post I was responding to, so since when is pointing out a historical fact bigoted?
Race card. Amateurishly played.
Interesting that the person who actually used "the South" in this thread, you conspicuously say nothing about. Why is that? You didn't see it, right?
What do they do when you attend those Republican teabagger rallies? Pass out straw bales the minute you guys come in the door or what?
"TO MICHAEL!"
The vast majority of the gun advocates and supporters in this country are from states that were on the losing side of the Civil War which advocated slavery and inequality for women and minorities. Quite a few of these same states house the vast majority of Neo-nazis, American terrorists and conspiracy theorists who think the government has FEMA camps ready to enslave citizens and thinks zombies are going to attack us.
Jawohl und Sieg Heil?
Interesting point you can make out of conjecture, huh? I think I'd choose the free peace and love over racist views anyday.
I think you just proved to us all that you really do NOT know much about what you speak of.
Give me a gun, I'll stay free. Take my gun and it's just a matter of time until I'm a slave. simple logic.
The vast majority of the gun advocates and supporters in this country are from states that were on the losing side of the Civil War which advocated slavery and inequality for women and minorities.
The Civil War is over. It's been over for quite some time. By using "The South" in this way, you're resorting to the same bigoted Archie Bunker bullshit that you constantly call the right out on.
BTW, you need to look up Goodwin's Law.
Remember kids: Latte Liberals are just Dittoheads with a designer label.
Hmm.
The post you link above shows me saying NOTHING about "the South".
...
.... go on ....
As a matter of fact, "the South" doesn't come into the thread by me or the poster I was responding to, but you claim I resorted to using "the South" in a "Archie Bunker bullshit" way.
What law did you just break? The "Failure to Read Posts Properly to Fling Wild-eyed Accusations Law" or the "Liar, Liar Pants on Fire Law"?
So you didn't follow the link?
You aren't in the Church of Scientology are you?
These were the Confederate states during the Civil War:
South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, North Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, and Tennessee.
These states had dual governments or were border states:
Kentucky, Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, and Missouri. They had portions that advocated slavery, inequality for women and minorities, some of them to a large extent. All of those aren't "southern".
Now, did the vast majority of states that were on the losing side of the Civil War advocate slavery, inequality for women and other minorities like Indians, Chinese and other immigrants or not? It is perfectly factual and relevant to the post I was responding to, so since when is pointing out a historical fact bigoted?
So all gun owners are also pro-slavery? ALL gun owners are misygonists? ALL gun owners are jingoist? Those are some pretty sweeping generalizations you got there. Maybe you aren't familiar with what the word bigot means...
Main Entry:
big·ot Listen to the pronunciation of bigot
Pronunciation: ?bi-g?t
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Race card. Amateurishly played.
uh... yeah... Especially since "The South" is a region and not a race..... en stuff....
Interesting that the person who actually used "the South" in this thread, you conspicuously say nothing about. Why is that? You didn't see it, right?
What do they do when you attend those Republican teabagger rallies? Pass out straw bales the minute you guys come in the door or what?
Let's not tap dance around this. You were making an anology based on something that has no relation to the present politics of the United States. You were trying to slander all gun owners as backwoods hicks and conveniently ignoring the fact that there are legal gun owners in every U.S. state and city from New York to Los Angles.
And now, you're trying to weasel out of your own narrow, muppety hyperbole.
Again, Latte Liberals = Dittoheads in Hot Topic.
Let's recap.
You claim I said something I didn't and was proven I didn't. You lied badly to win an internet point.
Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because slander is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. If the statement is made via broadcast media -- for example, over the radio or on TV -- it is considered libel, rather than slander, because the statement has the potential to reach a very wide audience.
This you did in front of the MMORPG community without shame.
And now you accuse me of slander towards no person in particular but a group of people, not a person when the post was clearly hyperbole to answer someone else's hyberbole as an example. This all the while the example I gave was true. That's really all we need to know about your post, isn't it?
So, which one do you think YOU actually committed in this thread already? Slander or libel?
"TO MICHAEL!"
Let's recap.
You claim I said something I didn't and was proven I didn't. You lied badly to win an internet point.
Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because slander is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. If the statement is made via broadcast media -- for example, over the radio or on TV -- it is considered libel, rather than slander, because the statement has the potential to reach a very wide audience.
This you did in front of the MMORPG community without shame.
And now you accuse me of slander towards no person in particular but a group of people, not a person when the post was clearly hyperbole to answer someone else's hyberbole
Full stop. This is how we got here. Looking back with this sentence in mind, I see it. I didn't see it before. But definitely see it now.
<sigh>
I'm just really tired of the "North vs. South" shit when it comes to this issue. Framing gun rights as a... Confederate (?) thing is very much similar to calling someone a Nazi. I realize that it is popular shorthand to portray someone as stupid or backward with a southern accent or "redneck" modes of dress and conduct, but that is no more appropriate than when Rush Limgaugh points out how Jesse Jackson looks like a composite of criminal mugshots. (note: I'm not making that up, he really said that.) Seriously, it's an ad hominum attack and lacks anything even remotely resembling intellectual integrity.
In a different thread, I pointed out that some people use guns to hunt food with and then you said something to the effect of "not everyone lives in a Louissiana swamp with the sound of banjos in the distance" or some shit like that. I didn't grow up in an environment such as you described, but there were people, my own family included, that wouldn't have gotten through the year if they couldn't hunt or fish for food. The fact that you would write off that kind of poverty with such a completely callouse and elitist comment speaks volumes of your true political motivations.
As a working class liberal, I sometimes find it very hard to reconcile the things I aggree with other liberal about with the patronizing and condenscending motivations that drive the politics many upper middle class liberals. The latte and poetry reading crowd does politics for ego. The Union man does politics for blood.
well put Jimmy_Scythe
As I said earlier in this I am definitely a Centrist by US standards at least, in European standards I'd be a Conservative, lol. But I lean more heavily towards the GOP side of things now in part based on the disgustingly elitist attitudes so many Liberals take.
This is the same as in Michigan.
As a student you are allowed to own a legally registered firearm. You are not allowed to have it in your dorm room, or carry it around campus. You are allowed to store it with the Campus Police, and may check the firearm out and take it off campus.
Many students do take firearms up to school during the fall for the purpose of deer hunting, especially if they attend school in the more rural areas of Northern and Western Michigan. I do not recall ever hearing of one of those students checking out his firearm and using it on campus, it is that infrequent. Frankly, they know the rules, and they follow them.
Texas law may allow students to carry firearms into the classroom, around the dorms, and into the dining commons. I do not forsee University rules changing to allow it.
My oversensationalism brought about that miscommunication pop. I guess I don't really disagree with you in premise, but I feel that if the legislature wants to pass this bill, so be it. In the end I have a feeling there are going to be some groundrules set by campuses which will make this significantly less "wild west" than the left is making it out to be.
A couple things to understand about my position though are: 1) I support the TX legislature attempting to pass the law, and support the law if passed. 2) I would have never proposed such a law myself. You said it before, I personally don't feel that the majority of gun owners are as responsible as I. I've also said I don't feel 21 year olds are responsible enough to handle carrying a gun on campus. Now, my comments were in regard to average "gun owners" not CHL holders, because they are not average in my opinion. The facts are, in Texas, the number of CHL holders involved in criminal acts is surprisingly small, even for my pro-gun thought process. So, my conclusion is that CHL holders have proven themselves much more capable than even I would have predicted. Therefore, if the TX State Legislature wants to expand the privilages associated with having a CHL based on that data, then I support them.
Okay, so I have said what needed to be said in support. However, I don't like laws that are passed as a knee-jerk reaction. So on that front, I disagree with the proposed law. I also have never agreed with laws which get the blanket statement "it will make you safer." Anytime I see that statement the hair on the back of my neck sticks up.
True, I hate them as well.
Usually, they are brought up when someone is not sure exactly how to defend a point because they learned that point from listening from someone else. They never had to examine the whole logical thought line of progression responsibly that goes along with a position. (not saying this about you)
Ex: Someone says Obama is this/that on the radio. So a guy hears it and says "Yeah, that sounds right." So then he meets someone with a different opinion who is constantly rebutting his argument. The problem is, the Obama basher didn't form his own opinion: it was GIVEN to him by the radio guy and he has no idea how to make it work because he's not as nuanced as the radio host was. And he's getting eaten alive and starts going off topic and hijacking threads.
It's kind of like when a teacher thinks a kid who cheated and has the right answer, and then says "Okay, show me how you arrived at this answer, because I cannot see how you did based on what you wrote." That kid is busted because he has no idea how to get there from here.
On the 'net, people start attacking because they were made to look silly. Sometimes the person does it on purpose, sometimes they don't but the guy thinks he meant it. So from that point on, he only attacks no matter what is said, however factual. Then it's insults and death threats, lol. It's a real shame but this is how politics are done in this country and the people who listen to it just rehash what they were told, as if it's true.
The shootings on college campuses in the United States are a rarity. I think there is about 4,100 colleges in the United States. There hasn't even been 1% of that in shootings on them since colleges were even invented, but yet here's a bill where they want to allow guns there because they "want students to defend themselves." Weird. A better argument to keep "them safe" would be to not allow guns to be had at all by the common public, which is a much better position. It's like getting pregnant; yeah, you can use a rubber or birth control, but the most effective way is simply to not have sex in the first place.
If you read this thread, you'll clearly see who actually was reading the whole thing, and who just jumped in the middle and formed opinions based on one post and dislike of people personally. I have no idea why someone wants to post in a thread they didn't really read but.. it happens.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Yeah I got that from reading that. Just like I got that having an alternate opinion on NAFTA makes you an extremist.
(All about the recruitment wording part)
page 6: "Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to work at significantly lower wages. They also opposed free trade agreements, arguing that these arrangements resulted in Americans losing jobs to countries such as Mexico"
It couldn't be having an opinion that immigration should be done legally at an absorbable rate. Under their wording everyone is a rightwing extremist who opposes mass illegal immigration at a rate that can't be absorbed.
(Illegal immigrants can have lower wages so whatever)
Nap's saying one has been recruited by extremists groups by your very quote. Sorry you don't see it.
May hap on the left wing report but still doesn't negate things.
Military vets were still singled out in the rightwing report and aren't mentioned in the left as far as I can tell.
Anyway the rightwing report was released in April so call me crazy if Nap had time to influence it since her reign of terror began in January.
Lastly I had to listen for 8 years with the "Bush did this for oil" garbage and that "the government did 9/11" crap. At least I have words from a government report to actually look at and not a oil contract that didn't go to the US.
AC2 Player RIP Final Death Jan 31st 2017
Refugee of Auberean
Refugee of Dereth
If that's what you got from reading that, then obviously reading comprehension is not your strong suit.
Napolitano's "reign of terror"? Wow. The unfounded rightwing paranoia is strong with this one.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
What do they do when you attend those Republican teabagger rallies? Pass out straw bales the minute you guys come in the door or what?
Earlier in this thread I said "one" solution to school shooting was to deal with bullying but no one caught that or acknowledged it in this thread. Ignorance is bliss.
Page 3 you mentioned the losing side of the civil war and most gun supporters being from there. The losing side was the South and its allies and the winning side was the North and its allies. Yeah I would've layed that out but I thought saying "the South" would get the picture.
Anyway with the South I said "one" mistake not the "only" mistake.
With the abolishing of slavery they probably would've received a proper backing of Europe despite the blockade. (Would've had to do this long before the war though) At the least more allies would've been willing to support a rebellion that didn't have suppression of races as one of its cornerstones.
There were anti-war sentiments, draft dodging on both sides, and election struggles in the north.
Yes the cooperation of military actions between the Southern States were problematic but so were the competency of military leaders and lack of firearm experience on the northern side.
(Least the beginning of the war)
My opinion on too much federal power still stands anyway.
Anyway Kobie mentioned on page 3 the South first in this thread and I'm tired of the South getting beat up all the time at this site.
Believe what you want though because I'm done here just like your side wants.
P.S. Anyone commenting on the "gun culture" like Kobie did in this thread isn't shopping at outfitters.
P.S. #2 Tea parties are about protesting taxes as was done in the early days over tax without representation so do the attenders feel they are no longer represented.
AC2 Player RIP Final Death Jan 31st 2017
Refugee of Auberean
Refugee of Dereth
Perhaps I shouldn't have pinned it all on the south -- there's plenty of gun nuts here in the rural areas of upstate NY as well.
The rest of your post is pure drivel.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
So you go GOP just to spite other liberals instead of voting on the issues?
And I hear the elitist argument about liberals all the time. I think a lot of people don't know the exact meaning of the term. If they did, they'd realize the right does their fair share. Such as tax breaks for the wealthy.
The Official God FAQ
You must have misread what I said.
I said I am a Centrist overall and right now I lean more to the right, leaning to the right and always voting with the right are two different things, lol. Given the fact I am a Centrist I'd say means I vote according to my own beliefs and follow neither parties "line" completely. I am very often disgusted by the elitist attitudes some very left leaning liberals display. Used to be I was far more disgusted with the far right but the left is outdoing them nowadays.
So what type of elitist attitudes are you talking about that can't be applied to the far right as well?
The Official God FAQ
Rather than acknowledge the Left has shown a lot of bad form you want to go right back into the whole the Right even is worse thing, eh?
Bias is a funny thing it blinds people entirely if they agree with said bias. Not saying that you do but you seem to be very left and see the right as nothing but pure evil and something that should be eradicated?
The GOPs biggest problem is well noted. They moved away from being the party of inclusion and turned into the party of religious zealotry and taking care of the rich too often. That doesn't mean that a lot of conservative ideas are not good ideas. All things in moderation and with thought and balance to them is always best. We need both parties and we need all sides of the spectrum. There is too much lefty sentiment lately that now they are on TOP and omg they need to crush the Republican party completely, utterly, destroy them. We are all on the same side, we are all Americans and we need both.
Either side can be too extreme and I tend to like neither example of extremism to be honest.
You used the elitist ways of the left as your reason for recently leaning right. So of course I want to point out that the Right have their elitist ways too. That would harm your reasoning for leaning right.
And yes, I am very biased, but only initially. If I'm introduced to a new bill and I see that liberals are supporting it and conservatives aren't, I'm going to assume that it's something that I would support. I assume that until I've actually researched the bill and come up with my own opinion.
There's no way to be completely unbiased. You tend to want to agree with those who you've agreed with a lot in the past. It makes sense.
And yes, I do want some of what conservatism is to be eradicated. Mostly the religious/moral code aspects of it.
The Official God FAQ
It doesn't sound like we are all that far apart.
For my next trick...sleep!
night
The vast majority of the gun advocates and supporters in this country are from states that were on the losing side of the Civil War which advocated slavery and inequality for women and minorities. Quite a few of these same states house the vast majority of Neo-nazis, American terrorists and conspiracy theorists who think the government has FEMA camps ready to enslave citizens and thinks zombies are going to attack us.
Jawohl und Sieg Heil?
Interesting point you can make out of conjecture, huh? I think I'd choose the free peace and love over racist views anyday.
I think you just proved to us all that you really do NOT know much about what you speak of.
Give me a gun, I'll stay free. Take my gun and it's just a matter of time until I'm a slave. simple logic.
That's actually idiotic. Just because you don't have a gun doesn't mean you're a slave. Could you be any more alarmist?
The vast majority of the gun advocates and supporters in this country are from states that were on the losing side of the Civil War which advocated slavery and inequality for women and minorities. Quite a few of these same states house the vast majority of Neo-nazis, American terrorists and conspiracy theorists who think the government has FEMA camps ready to enslave citizens and thinks zombies are going to attack us.
Jawohl und Sieg Heil?
Interesting point you can make out of conjecture, huh? I think I'd choose the free peace and love over racist views anyday.
I think you just proved to us all that you really do NOT know much about what you speak of.
Give me a gun, I'll stay free. Take my gun and it's just a matter of time until I'm a slave. simple logic.
That's actually idiotic. Just because you don't have a gun doesn't mean you're a slave. Could you be any more alarmist?
Closing Gitmo WILL end up killing Americans.
Increasing any taxes WILL bankrupt the entire country.
Allowing gays to marry WILL be the death of the American family.
Wanting to pull out of Iraq means you hate America.
If we don't have guns, we'll all be slaves.
Fear, extreme exaggeration, and ignorance. It's how the right functions.
I've never owned a gun and probably never will. Maybe I should start practicing my slave labor songs.
The Official God FAQ