Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board » Off-Topic Post, Non Stock Talk » Failure of strict gun control in Chicago is evident

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Failure of strict gun control in Chicago is evident
CashCowMoo
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for CashCowMoo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This whole blame guns for personal behavior is ridiculous. "Oh but cash if you make it harder to get guns then crime goes down." Yeah, sure it does. Look at England.


assault is a behavior, not a weapon. Barbaric inner city behavior (gangs) is going to find a way with or without firearms. Machete or knife attacks are just as easy.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/24-7/2168678,CST-NWS-violence17.article

--------------------
It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.

Posts: 6946 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jordanreed
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for jordanreed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
never heard of a drive by shooting...a gun makes it easier to kill someome..its can be used at a distance ...to actually use a knife or machete to kill is more difficult, not easier...up close and personal you have to have balls to kill ...most thugs who kill with guns are punks and cowards.put a gun in an ordinary mans hand and he MIGHT be able to pull the trigger on an intruder...not so with a knife...hope you get my point..as always this is jmho....good day punks..

--------------------
jordan

Posts: 5812 | From: st paul,mn | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jordanreed
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for jordanreed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here..let me paste an article too!....be sure to read and believe every word...I HAVE SPOKEN!!!


Myth :Gun ownership is not the cause of America's high murder rate.

Fact : Gun availability is highly correlated with murder.
Sensible, Federal Gun control laws make the murder rate fall.


WOW..this supports what i said!!..

The third component of murder is feasibility. A person might have both the desire and the weapon needed to kill, but if the circumstances don't offer a feasible opportunity to carry it out, then a person will probably decide against it.

With weapons like knives or clubs, a would-be murderer faces enormous personal risk.
Here's why :

* Getting physically close to the victim might be impossible under a wide variety of circumstances.
* Getting closer to the victim reduces the odds of surprise, secrecy or anonymity.
* The intended victim might be taller or stronger.
* The intended victim might be surrounded by friends, family or bodyguards.
* The victim might shout out for help.
* A crowd might come to the victim's rescue.
* In the ensuing struggle, the murderer might be seriously wounded or even killed.
* The struggle will probably leave tell-tale signs of blood, skin or hair-follicles on the murderer.
* The intended victim might survive and testify against him.

A gun, however, dramatically reduces all above.
Guns allow people to :

• Kill victims from afar.
• maintain a much greater element of surprise, secrecy and anonymity.
• Kill larger and stronger people.
• Kill crowds.
• Frighten away people who might otherwise help.
• Assume almost no risk of injury from personal struggle.
• Leave no tell-tale blood or other physical evidence on the murderer.
• Leave the victim less likely to survive or see him to testify against him.

http://pearlyabraham.tripod.com/htmls/myth-guns1.html

--------------------
jordan

Posts: 5812 | From: st paul,mn | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jordanreed
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for jordanreed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"If guns were the answer to the threat of violent crime,
we’d sell them at police headquarters."
Neil Behrens, former Chief, Baltimore County, MD Police Department

--------------------
jordan

Posts: 5812 | From: st paul,mn | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jordanreed
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for jordanreed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pro-gun criminologist Gary Kleck has argued that the higher fatality rate of gun suicide attempts "could be due to greater seriousness of intent among gun users. There is evidence that suicide attempters who use more lethal methods are more intent on killing themselves, rather than merely making an attempt as a 'cry for help, to those around them."

But this observation is irrelevant, because those with more serious intent are presumably attracted to guns for their greater killing ability in the first place. The heightened ability of guns has important implications for murder. When people experience a murderous impulse, they may attack no matter what the situation, and with whatever weapon is handy. Although they may attack with the same degree of ferocity and blind passion, a knife attack will probably result in injury, a gun attack in death. Thus, enhanced ability alone will drive up the murder rate. It follows that if a gun is lying around the house waiting for the next violent family argument to happen, the chances for tragedy are greater.

--------------------
jordan

Posts: 5812 | From: st paul,mn | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jordanreed
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for jordanreed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What guns do, then, is make it more feasible for a would-be killer to act out his murderous impulses.
Gun possession thus allows a crime to occur that wouldn't have otherwise.


Let's imagine now two countries, both of which have populations of 250 million. Suppose 50,000 people in each of these countries are going to experience murderous impulses over the course of a year.One nation has a complete ban on guns. The other has universal gun ownership.Which nation will see the higher murder rate? Common sense would dictate that the nation with guns will realize its enhanced ability and feasibility to commit murder.

However, we should never underestimate the gun advocates' powers of rationalization! A common counter-argument is Robert Heinleinls : "An armed society is a polite society." This is hardly true, as the statistics below demonstrate; you could not get a more polite and murder-free society than Japan, which bans virtually all guns, or a more violent society than America, which owns the most guns in the world. But let's treat this counter-argument on a philosophical level.

If we were to arm everyone in society, then the ability to commit murder would become universal.
This is a serious step in the wrong direction.

--------------------
jordan

Posts: 5812 | From: st paul,mn | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jordanreed
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for jordanreed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Myth # 4

"Gun control is a socialist plot to disarm America and 'take our guns away'."

This tired old lie has recently been dusted off by the NRA. They seem to ignore the fact that many gun control measures are supported by 91% of the American people. A poll in US News and World Report showed that 42% of gun OWNERS support a gun licensing system. There are many notable conservatives who support gun control measures. Conservative commentator George Will has voiced support for banning semi-automatic assault weapons. Another conservative columnist, James Kilpatrick supports limiting the availability of concealable handguns. Former surgeon general C. Everett Koop, advanced his own proposal for licensing gun owners. Conservative columnist Cal Thomas publicly supports some gun control measures. In March of 1991 a well known speaker issued the following statement: "You do know that I'm a member of the NRA, and my position on the right to bear arms is well known. But I want you to know something else, and I am going to say it in clear, unmistakable language. I support the Brady Bill, and I urge Congress to enact it without further delay". The speaker of those words was that famous "liberal" Ronald Reagan. On another occasion, Reagan endorsed the assault weapons ban. These are only a few of the "socialists" who support gun control.

--------------------
jordan

Posts: 5812 | From: st paul,mn | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jordanreed
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for jordanreed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The second amendment to the Constitution was intended to arm the people against a possible tyrannical government. We would need modern weaponry, like semi automatic assault rifles, to fight the government."

If that is true, then why stop at handguns and semi automatic assault rifles? This argument would lead to the conclusion that to adequately combat the government, private citizens would need to have machine guns, bazookas, shoulder launched missiles, tanks, blackhawk helicopters, and yes even nuclear weapons. Again, this exemplifies the idiocy of the NRA's arguments.

--------------------
jordan

Posts: 5812 | From: st paul,mn | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jordanreed
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for jordanreed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
MYTH # 1
The Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees an individual right to own and carry a gun.

FACT
The gun lobby focuses on the second half of the Second Amendment when making this argument. In doing so it misinterprets the meaning of the amendment. The Second Amendment is designed to give the states the right to form and maintain a "well regulated militia" to provide for the security of the state and as supplement to the police. It and is not meant to ensure an individual right to bear arms. The amendment means what it says - in its entirety.

The National Guard, created in 1903, is the modern equivalent of an organized state militia. The members of the National Guard are provided with arms when called into duty and are not required to privately own firearms for service. This view that the Second Amendment is a group rather than an individual right has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court as well as lower federal courts.

In fact, no law restricting the ownership of private arms has ever been struck down on Second Amendment grounds. The Supreme Court decided in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, that possession of a firearm is not protected by the Second Amendment unless it has “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. The Supreme Court has stated that today’s militia is the National Guard. That decision by the Supreme Court is the law of the land. We challenge those who claim that the Federal government does not have the right to restrict the private ownership of firearms to file a lawsuit against the Federal government, on Second Amendment basis, to overthrow the Brady Bill and/or the ban on assault guns

--------------------
jordan

Posts: 5812 | From: st paul,mn | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
CashCowMoo
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for CashCowMoo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jordanreed:
MYTH # 1
The Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees an individual right to own and carry a gun.

FACT
The gun lobby focuses on the second half of the Second Amendment when making this argument. In doing so it misinterprets the meaning of the amendment. The Second Amendment is designed to give the states the right to form and maintain a "well regulated militia" to provide for the security of the state and as supplement to the police. It and is not meant to ensure an individual right to bear arms. The amendment means what it says - in its entirety.

The National Guard, created in 1903, is the modern equivalent of an organized state militia. The members of the National Guard are provided with arms when called into duty and are not required to privately own firearms for service. This view that the Second Amendment is a group rather than an individual right has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court as well as lower federal courts.

In fact, no law restricting the ownership of private arms has ever been struck down on Second Amendment grounds. The Supreme Court decided in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, that possession of a firearm is not protected by the Second Amendment unless it has “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. The Supreme Court has stated that today’s militia is the National Guard. That decision by the Supreme Court is the law of the land. We challenge those who claim that the Federal government does not have the right to restrict the private ownership of firearms to file a lawsuit against the Federal government, on Second Amendment basis, to overthrow the Brady Bill and/or the ban on assault guns

Gun control is also known as a "feel good" law where you just keep passing harder laws on gun control to make people feel safer, when in reality it doesnt do a damn thing.

Knowing that gun control doesnt work to deter crime, what do you do? Keep blaming guns?

Posts: 6946 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jordanreed
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for jordanreed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
wrong again, muchacho

--------------------
jordan

Posts: 5812 | From: st paul,mn | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jordanreed
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for jordanreed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
try reading what i posted ...if you can...and open your mind to reality...keep your guns, just stay away from me,,I dont trust you tea baggers..you're scary

--------------------
jordan

Posts: 5812 | From: st paul,mn | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
CashCowMoo
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for CashCowMoo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tea baggers? You hypocrite...typical liberal.


jordanreed
Member

posted April 18, 2010 10:11

"name calling is an uninformed way of communicating ... "


btw I am not affiliated with the Tea Party.

--------------------
It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.

Posts: 6946 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jordanreed
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for jordanreed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
yes you are...

--------------------
jordan

Posts: 5812 | From: st paul,mn | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jordanreed
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for jordanreed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
tea baggers, tea party.....all the same..didnt mean to offend your sensibilities...are you gonna shoot me!!!!!!

--------------------
jordan

Posts: 5812 | From: st paul,mn | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In fact, no law restricting the ownership of private arms has ever been struck down on Second Amendment grounds

wrong.

for starters? that case was about taxing firearms not banning them. The arms in that case were taxed not banned. The question was whether they could be TAXED>

the court specifically did not rule on the question of private gun ownership at the time.

furhtermore? SCTUS has ruled since then .

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) was a landmark legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use in federal enclaves. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states.[1] It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense.

Holding
The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

and is scheduled to rule very soon on whether the decision extends to the states.

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
CashCowMoo
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for CashCowMoo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jordanreed:
tea baggers, tea party.....all the same..didnt mean to offend your sensibilities...are you gonna shoot me!!!!!!

jordan, I can only wonder what extremes you are into.
Posts: 6946 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The National Guard, created in 1903, is the modern equivalent of an organized state militia. The members of the National Guard are provided with arms when called into duty and are not required to privately own firearms for service. This view that the Second Amendment is a group rather than an individual right has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court as well as lower federal courts.

this is good example of the pure BS the anti-gun groups spew.

SCOTUS has never upheld the view they claim.

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jordanreed
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for jordanreed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CashCowMoo:
quote:
Originally posted by jordanreed:
tea baggers, tea party.....all the same..didnt mean to offend your sensibilities...are you gonna shoot me!!!!!!

jordan, I can only wonder what extremes you are into.
I have no idea what you're talking about...do you?

extreme?...geez...however ..I am an exremely good golfer, sax player, father, gardener, reader, carpet layer, harp player,etc.. so maybe thats what you mean.. [BadOne] ...so...thanks again, my gun-totin, aggressive, violent friend ..peace out.

--------------------
jordan

Posts: 5812 | From: st paul,mn | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
CashCowMoo
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for CashCowMoo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jordanreed:
quote:
Originally posted by CashCowMoo:
quote:
Originally posted by jordanreed:
tea baggers, tea party.....all the same..didnt mean to offend your sensibilities...are you gonna shoot me!!!!!!

jordan, I can only wonder what extremes you are into.
I have no idea what you're talking about...do you?

extreme?...geez...however ..I am an exremely good golfer, sax player, father, gardener, reader, carpet layer, harp player,etc.. so maybe thats what you mean.. [BadOne] ...so...thanks again, my gun-totin, aggressive, violent friend ..peace out.


Posts: 6946 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
everybody can agree that the second amendment is worded oddly.

well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Approaching the sentence as grammarians, we immediately note two things: the simple subject is "right" and the full predicate is "shall not be infringed." This, in other words, is a sentence about a right that is already assumed to exist. It does not say, "The people shall have a right to keep and bear arms." The amendment recognizes , but does not grant, the right. As the U.S. Supreme Court wrote in the late 19th century, the right to keep and bear arms is independent of the Constitution.
That has important implications for the opening militia phrase, which confuses so many people. Gun opponents often argue that if the opening phrase does not apply — if, say, the standing army takes the place of the militia — then the right to keep and bear arms is nullified. That view would require a willingness by the framers of the Constitution to agree to this statement: If a well-regulated militia is not necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall (or may) be infringed. But it is absurd to think that the Framers would embrace that statement. Their political philosophy would not permit them to speak of a permissible infringement of rights. In their view, individuals, joining together to form a political unit, delegate rights and powers to government. But the people do not — cannot — consent to an infringement of their rights — such consent, logically, would make no sense. The term infringement implies lack of consent.

As a matter of logic, it is an error to believe that nullification of the opening phrase would nullify the main clause. Imagine a long-lost constitution that stated: "The earth being flat, the right of the people to abstain from ocean travel shall not be infringed." Would anyone seriously argue that discovery of the earth's spherical shape would justify compelling people to sail?


--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
it is alos important to note that GRAMMATICALLY the second ammendment places CIVILIAN (the people) authority over military authority. Which is how we structured our miltiary- Civilians do control our military.

regulated literally means controlled.

replace regulated with controlled and you get the real intent of the Founders.


A well controlled Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
CashCowMoo
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for CashCowMoo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
it is alos important to note that GRAMMATICALLY the second ammendment places CIVILIAN (the people) authority over military authority. Which is how we structured our miltiary- Civilians do control our military.

regulated literally means controlled.

replace regulated with controlled and you get the real intent of the Founders.


A well controlled Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Look, we are past the point of no return. Full speed ahead on spending and Chinese debt.
Posts: 6946 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
raybond
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for raybond     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
VIDEO: On Anniversary Of Oklahoma City Bombing, Armed Right-Wing Activists Accuse Obama Of Tyranny
Today in Fort Hunt, and later in Gravelly Point, two parks along the Potomac River in Virginia, right-wing activists gathered with loaded pistols and unloaded rifles to protest the Obama administration’s “tyranny.” Today also marks the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, but attendees told ThinkProgress that April 19th is significant for several reasons. One attendee likened his movement to the Jews who rose up in the Warsaw ghetto against Nazi soldiers, which began on April 19th, while some said they were like the revolutionaries who fought in the battle of Lexington and Concord. Others, echoing Timothy McVeigh and Rush Limbaugh, commemorate April 19th because it marks the siege of the Branch Davidian ranch in Waco.

Only about 50 attendees showed up to the rally. A man who identified himself as “Mark” from Arkansas said many people wanted to attend, but did not have enough vacation time or money to make the trip. Mark said he read about some European countries which provide for more vacation time, and although he opposes the government, said he wishes it would do more to increase wages and paid leave for workers. In any case, there were as many reporters as attendees at the event.

Mike Vanderboegh, the blogger who encouraged people to throw bricks at Democratic offices around the country last month and who called for a “thousand little Wacos” to resist the government, addressed the rally in the morning. He told the crowd that the government must “to understand this situation is coming to a fundamental break when people innocent and guilty are going to begin dying for their failure to understand.” Vanderboegh told a reporter that there will be “consequences” for the government. Asked if that means “more Ruby Ridges, more Wacos,” Vanderbroegh replied, “precisely.”

Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, mocked President Clinton for cautioning militia groups not to use incendiary rhetoric. “This is the guy whose Attorney General thinks a barbecue is burning a bunch of people in Waco and he’s lecturing us about being civil,” barked Pratt at the rally. Pratt then said suggested that the Obama administration is elitist, and that they would do “whatever they have to — including barbecue.” TP’s Victor Zapanta produced a video of interviews and speeches at the event.
Although many protesters were adamant about their belief that the Obama administration is conspiring to confiscate their weapons, as the Washington Post pointed out today, Obama has actually expanded gun rights and signed into law a rule last year which allowed guns into National Parks, making today’s event possible.

--------------------
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.

Posts: 3767 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
CashCowMoo
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for CashCowMoo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by raybond:
VIDEO: On Anniversary Of Oklahoma City Bombing, Armed Right-Wing Activists Accuse Obama Of Tyranny
Today in Fort Hunt, and later in Gravelly Point, two parks along the Potomac River in Virginia, right-wing activists gathered with loaded pistols and unloaded rifles to protest the Obama administration’s “tyranny.” Today also marks the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, but attendees told ThinkProgress that April 19th is significant for several reasons. One attendee likened his movement to the Jews who rose up in the Warsaw ghetto against Nazi soldiers, which began on April 19th, while some said they were like the revolutionaries who fought in the battle of Lexington and Concord. Others, echoing Timothy McVeigh and Rush Limbaugh, commemorate April 19th because it marks the siege of the Branch Davidian ranch in Waco.

Only about 50 attendees showed up to the rally. A man who identified himself as “Mark” from Arkansas said many people wanted to attend, but did not have enough vacation time or money to make the trip. Mark said he read about some European countries which provide for more vacation time, and although he opposes the government, said he wishes it would do more to increase wages and paid leave for workers. In any case, there were as many reporters as attendees at the event.

Mike Vanderboegh, the blogger who encouraged people to throw bricks at Democratic offices around the country last month and who called for a “thousand little Wacos” to resist the government, addressed the rally in the morning. He told the crowd that the government must “to understand this situation is coming to a fundamental break when people innocent and guilty are going to begin dying for their failure to understand.” Vanderboegh told a reporter that there will be “consequences” for the government. Asked if that means “more Ruby Ridges, more Wacos,” Vanderbroegh replied, “precisely.”

Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, mocked President Clinton for cautioning militia groups not to use incendiary rhetoric. “This is the guy whose Attorney General thinks a barbecue is burning a bunch of people in Waco and he’s lecturing us about being civil,” barked Pratt at the rally. Pratt then said suggested that the Obama administration is elitist, and that they would do “whatever they have to — including barbecue.” TP’s Victor Zapanta produced a video of interviews and speeches at the event.
Although many protesters were adamant about their belief that the Obama administration is conspiring to confiscate their weapons, as the Washington Post pointed out today, Obama has actually expanded gun rights and signed into law a rule last year which allowed guns into National Parks, making today’s event possible.

Kinda funny how tea party is full of voters and are jeapordizing many Democrats campaigns. VIOLA! all of a sudden not last year, or the year before, but this year we need to focus on Oklahoma City and tie it to them!
Posts: 6946 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
raybond
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for raybond     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
since there are so many people looking for money we should put a $500 bounty on tea party scalps that would finish them off in 30 days.

--------------------
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.

Posts: 3767 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bullitt49
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for bullitt49     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
yeah that makes sense. anyone who questions the government should be scalped. classic tree hugger.

--------------------
It is better to be humbled than ruined

Posts: 138 | From: Connecticut | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SeekingFreedom
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for SeekingFreedom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by raybond:
since there are so many people looking for money we should put a $500 bounty on tea party scalps that would finish them off in 30 days.

Are you advocating violence against a group of people solely based on their political views, Ray?

Telling.

--------------------
/weepforthenation

Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Allstocks.com Message Board Home

© 1997 - 2013 Allstocks.com. All rights reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2

Share