Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on July 25, 2012, 05:31:11 AM
-
-
Completely clueless. BillO has no clue about the required tax stamps for full auto.
He's rattling off phrases like "AK 47" and doens't have a freaking clue.
Hey republicans, look at your party leadership. Top TV pundit is anti-gun. Top neocon voice is anti-gun. Romney signed an anti-gun AWB.
Yet you bitch about obama and the dems, who haven't subjected us to any anti-gun legislation.
Watch and see... we're at a point now where republicans are complaining about obama using too much violence on terrorists. Repubs complaining about us bombing terr'ist kadaffi in libya. Repubs complaining about obama allowing americans to buy a rifle.
You fvcks. You fvcking fvcks. Seriously, STFU ever criticizing obama for anti-gun again. You fvcks.
-
Andrea Ryan added this on firearms registration:
Bill O’Reilly was wrong and Senator Chaffetz was completely correct.
A simple reading of the ATF’s own website is irrefutable support that Bill O’Reilly was ranting on a topic he knows nothing about. And it’s a dangerous rant, because it incites people based on misinformation. For someone to call an AK-47 (a gun that could be, and is, used for hunting) “heavy armor” and “heavy armament” and then lump it in with mortars and heavy artillery is astoundingly uninformed. And then shame on Bill O’Reilly to tell Senator Chaffetz, who does know and understand the Federal laws, that he was wrong.
The Federal government requires a $200 SOT Tax Stamp for certain firearms listed below, along with an NFA application, a background check, and approval by the ATF, as well as, the local Chief Law Enforcement Officer. It’s an extremely rigorous and expensive process. The government makes it very difficult to own one of these and they make the burden on the individual to get it right quite brutal. Note: the machine guns that Bill O’Reilly said you can “just grab one at a gun show” are on the ATF’s list. You can’t just grab one at a gun show. This even applies to any piece of metal, i.e. a sear, that allows a rifle to become fully automatic.
The process takes many, many months. And if an owner wants to give or sell any of these firearms to another individual they must repeat the process, along with another $200 payment to the ATF.
From the ATF‘s website,
Q: The types of firearms that must be registered in the National Firearm Registration and Transfer Record are defined in the NFA and 27 CFR, Part 479. What are some examples?
Some examples of the types of firearms that must be registered are:
•Machine guns;
•The frames or receivers of machine guns;
•Any combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting weapons into machine guns;
•Any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for converting a weapon into a machine gun;
•Any combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the control of a person;
•Silencers and any part designed and intended for fabricating a silencer;
•Short-barreled rifles;
•Short-barreled shotguns;
•Destructive devices; and,
•“Any other weapon.”
A few examples of destructive devices are:
•Molotov cocktails;
•Anti-tank guns (over caliber .50);
•Bazookas; and,
•Mortars.
A few examples of “any other weapon” are:
•H&R Handyguns;
•Ithaca Auto-Burglar guns;
•Cane guns; and,
•Gadget-type firearms and “pen” guns which fire a projectile by the action of an explosive.
[26 U.S.C. 5845]
Q: How can an individual legally acquire NFA firearms?
Basically, there are 2 ways that an individual (who is not prohibited by Federal, State, or local law from receiving or possessing firearms) may legally acquire NFA firearms:
1.By transfer after approval by ATF of a registered weapon from its lawful owner residing in the same State as the transferee.
2.By obtaining prior approval from ATF to make NFA firearms.
[27 CFR 479.62-66 and 479.84-86]
Q: What is the tax on making an NFA firearm?
The tax is $200 for making any NFA firearm, including “any other weapon.”
Q: How is this tax paid?
A money order or check made payable to the Bureau of ATF together with the application forms are to be mailed to the Bureau of ATF, NFA Branch.
-
It infuriates me.
I cannot understand what is appearing to be a coordinated effort - among the top voices of the GOP - to shit on gun rights.
If Obama made this quote, it woudl be on the front page of drudge. unreal. Disgusting. If rachel maddow said this, she'd be getting wrecked on the boards for being an anti-gun moron. I bet (aside frmo 333386), most getbiggers won't call oreilly a clueless moron who doesn't think you deserve your rifle.
I mean, he doesn't konw the diff from an AK and a rifle. An AK "IS" a rifle. Fuuuck guys, THIS is the voice of the repub party? unreal.
-
Completely clueless. BillO has no clue about the required tax stamps for full auto.
He's rattling off phrases like "AK 47" and doens't have a freaking clue.
Hey republicans, look at your party leadership. Top TV pundit is anti-gun. Top neocon voice is anti-gun. Romney signed an anti-gun AWB.
Yet you bitch about obama and the dems, who haven't subjected us to any anti-gun legislation.
Watch and see... we're at a point now where republicans are complaining about obama using too much violence on terrorists. Repubs complaining about us bombing terr'ist kadaffi in libya. Repubs complaining about obama allowing americans to buy a rifle.
You fvcks. You fvcking fvcks. Seriously, STFU ever criticizing obama for anti-gun again. You fvcks.
How about this obessession w the ammo? Would these dopes have felt any different if he got the ammo from Wal Mart instead and bought the ammo in 200 rd increments at different wal marts over the course of two years?
-
It infuriates me.
I cannot understand what is appearing to be a coordinated effort - among the top voices of the GOP - to shit on gun rights.
If Obama made this quote, it woudl be on the front page of drudge. unreal. Disgusting. If rachel maddow said this, she'd be getting wrecked on the boards for being an anti-gun moron. I bet (aside frmo 333386), most getbiggers won't call oreilly a clueless moron who doesn't think you deserve your rifle.
I mean, he doesn't konw the diff from an AK and a rifle. An AK "IS" a rifle. Fuuuck guys, THIS is the voice of the repub party? unreal.
A trained shooter with a scoped in deer rifle or a lever action 30-30 could have killed just as many if not more than Holmes did.
-
THANK YOU 333386!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Props for not being a bill-O kneepadder. He is really ignorant on this topic. he didn't know what a tax stamp is. He didn't konw an Ak is in fact, a rifle. He thought all AKs were full auto.
WHO is the pro-gun voice of the GOP now? Do we even know? ROmney signed an assault weapons ban, period. Dude will take your guns if he can.
Now kristol and Oreilly agree. shaking my head.
-
THANK YOU 333386!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Props for not being a bill-O kneepadder. He is really ignorant on this topic. he didn't know what a tax stamp is. He didn't konw an Ak is in fact, a rifle. He thought all AKs were full auto.
WHO is the pro-gun voice of the GOP now? Do we even know? ROmney signed an assault weapons ban, period. Dude will take your guns if he can.
Now kristol and Oreilly agree. shaking my head.
It is so absurd that these media people are so uniformed on these topics.
The fact is that you can walk into wal mart and buy ammo. He could have went to 6 different wal marts over a year and ammassed the same amount of ammo without a hitch.
And big FNG deal "AK47"
Someone who is a good shot w a Ruger 10-22, also semi-auto, can just as easily take me out.
Is the Ruger 10-22 an "assault rifle" now too or "heavy weaponry" as BOR calls it?
Just embarassing episode on Fox News all around.
-
How about this obessession w the ammo? Would these dopes have felt any different if he got the ammo from Wal Mart instead and bought the ammo in 200 rd increments at different wal marts over the course of two years?
Great point. He could have picked it up in small increments just as easily. no billO wants the government intervening when people purchase ammo in bulk to save money. I remember buying 1000 rounds for $115 a few years back (i'm sure it is much more expensive now haha) from one of those same bulkammo.com sites - I'm glad billO wasn't there to yell at me for it.
I'm shocked he was so ill-prepared for this. He didn't know what a tax stamp was. WTF man?
-
This is hilarious and scary as hell. The Republicans are now full on neoconservatives (liberals), Beach Bum, O'Reilly, etc... The democrats are more conservative. Obama
-
Great point. He could have picked it up in small increments just as easily. no billO wants the government intervening when people purchase ammo in bulk to save money. I remember buying 1000 rounds for $115 a few years back (i'm sure it is much more expensive now haha) from one of those same bulkammo.com sites - I'm glad billO wasn't there to yell at me for it.
I'm shocked he was so ill-prepared for this. He didn't know what a tax stamp was. WTF man?
I am in a few facebook threads on this topic. The anti-2nd amend types are so uninformed on these topics its really embarassing debating them and pointing out their many false ideas about how things really work. Typically these are people who never owned a weapon in the first place and have no idea what is involved to do it legally.
They never heard of NICS, nothing.
And as Chaffetz said - what amount of rounds is enough for BOR to trigger notifying the FBI? 100, 1000, 10,000? The FBI could not even keep track of Anwars Al Aliki despite 18 emails about him, or some of the 911 terrorists.
-
THANK YOU 333386!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Props for not being a bill-O kneepadder. He is really ignorant on this topic. he didn't know what a tax stamp is. He didn't konw an Ak is in fact, a rifle. He thought all AKs were full auto.
WHO is the pro-gun voice of the GOP now? Do we even know? ROmney signed an assault weapons ban, period. Dude will take your guns if he can.
Now kristol and Oreilly agree. shaking my head.
BOR is a joke - and its not just this topic. On many issues he is wholly uninformed and unprepared.
-
Let's take BOR's rant to the next step:
1. If you say that ammo purchases over 1,000 rounds have to be reported to the FBI. Then what is stopping someone from just purchasing 900 rounds from several different stores or Internet sellers? Is it just on the honor system? Because if you say that all seller would have to report the purchases and someone in the FBI would check to see if multiple purchases were made, then what you are really saying is that ALL ammo purchases must be reported to the FBI and anyone walking into Wal-Mart to buy a box of .22 Ammo would have to fill out a form that goes to the FBI.
2. What happens when somebody purchases what you consider a large amount of Ammo? Does the FBI show up at their door to ask what its for? Do they have to provide a valid response, what if they just tell the FBI agent it's none of their business and to get lost? Can the FBI then confiscate the Ammo because the purchaser didn't provide a "valid" reason for needing it, even though the purchaser did not break any laws.
-
i've spent an afternoon on the range with 4 or 5 buddies.
1000 rounds wouldn't last long at all.
-
i've spent an afternoon on the range with 4 or 5 buddies.
1000 rounds wouldn't last long at all.
My uncle is a huge Trap shooting fan and goes all over the place. He will do 10 rounds a day sometimes or more. Should the FBI go visit him for owning weak ass bird shot and target round shells for tourneys?
LOL
-
whats scary is that someone so misinformed about the gun issue has been near the top of the repub pundit voice for over a decade.
his producers were no doubt saying "bill, stop talking!" in his earpiece and he dug deeper with his nonsense. You could tell by the un-sure-ness in his voice that he was no longer confident in what he was saying - making it up as he went along.
HERE is the thing - unless you understand gun laws, you cannot deliver an effective anti-gun argument. 33, you or I could (despite the moral corruption) devise a much more effective anti-gun argument because we are informed on the topic. not that we would.
The point is that bill makes the anti-gunners AND the repubs look bad. I'm betting tonight on his show, he has a detailed grasp of the topic (taught to him this afternoon, no doubt), and some idiots will come on getbig as use that as evidence that Bill-O understood the topic all along ;)
-
I'm thoroughly convinced that the national IQ level would jump a few points if we simply stopped watching corporate news networks like BSNBC and Fux News.
"We'll do it live!"
-
Seems fair.
Why do you need 60,000 rounds? Why not track that ordinance?
I'm an Englishman, so explain this to me.
These guns aren't for hunting rabbits, right?
They aren't for home protection, right?
So are you allowing these weapons so that the people can rise up against the government if government gets out of hand?
If so - when the fuck are you going to rise up? Cause it sure as shit seems to me the government is out of hand already.
Then again, regardless of the fact you have a fancy gun at home, if the government of the USA decides to point their weapons inwards, what the fnck you going to do anyway? You might well be the big man in the cinema against a room full of people with popcorn but really, what are you going to do against a well armed force of trained soldiers?
Fuck all is what.
-
Seems fair.
Why do you need 60,000 rounds? Why not track that ordinance?
I'm an Englishman, so explain this to me.
These guns aren't for hunting rabbits, right?
They aren't for home protection, right?
So are you allowing these weapons so that the people can rise up against the government if government gets out of hand?
If so - when the fuck are you going to rise up? Cause it sure as shit seems to me the government is out of hand already.
Then again, regardless of the fact you have a fancy gun at home, if the government of the USA decides to point their weapons inwards, what the fnck you going to do anyway? You might well be the big man in the cinema against a room full of people with popcorn but really, what are you going to do against a well armed force of trained soldiers?
Fuck all is what.
You really don't understand the history of this country do you?
The 2nd amendment is clearly not about hunting or home defense.
-
nothing wrong with having 60k rounds.
You need 60,000 rounds for the same reason you need 60 rounds - hunting, target practice, self-defense.
If the price is right, stock up. Keep it dry, it won't go bad. If I bought a large amount of ammo and govt workers came to the door to ask me why, I think i'd fall down laughing. Seriously? A person only has ONE set of hands. Fire 30 rounds, reload. Any limit would have been circumvented with small purchases.
IMO, the fact there wasn't an armed security guard at a midnight showing of a movie = the problem. Several clean shots fired from the elevated projector position and that joker is down for the count.
Instead, I'm guessing it was 8 or 9 theater employees calling 911 from their cell phones after spending 3 or 4 minutes fleeing.
-
The Declaration of Independence:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should
be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of
Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation,
have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to
their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its
Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and
Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:
________________________ ________________________ ___________
QFT
-
You really don't understand the history of this country do you?
The 2nd amendment is clearly not about hunting or home defense.
No - I understand it quite well.
I understand that you have the right to form armed militias to keep government in check.
So what you gonna do about the government, fat boy? Seems like you whine a lot about it but I don't see any action.
If whine is all you gonna do - there's no reason for that pen!s extension you have in your wardrobe is there? Of course, until you go postal and take out Yoko.
-
The Declaration of Independence:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should
be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of
Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation,
have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to
their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its
Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and
Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:
________________________ ________________________ ___________
QFT
Well - your government must be quite scared of you posting on getbig and all....
fucking quoting this whilst sitting on your ass doing nothing but whine on teh internet.
what a tard.
-
No - I understand it quite well.
I understand that you have the right to form armed militias to keep government in check.
So what you gonna do about the government, fat boy? Seems like you whine a lot about it but I don't see any action.
If whine is all you gonna do - there's no reason for that pen!s extension you have in your wardrobe is there? Of course, until you go postal and take out Yoko.
LOL. Nice little meltdown.
Let me ask you - what is the right amount of ammo to be allowed to have and who and how are you going to track it?
-
Well - your government must be quite scared of you posting on getbig and all....
fucking quoting this whilst sitting on your ass doing nothing but whine on teh internet.
what a tard.
WTF are you talking about?
The issue is the govt and other leftists seeking to disarm people, which is not occuring as of yet.
-
LOL. Nice little meltdown.
Let me ask you - what is the right amount of ammo to be allowed to have and who and how are you going to track it?
Let me ask you.
How much are you going to whine about your government before you rise up against it?
The second amendment is defunct. You don't need the guns because you are too weak to rise up anyway.
So - you will be the big man and post on getbig, defending the rights of someone with a set of balls to rise up against the government. Only the people you are defending don't exist. They are just keyboard warriors just like you who would soil their pants in the face of a trained force. Ain't no big balled guys to rise up any more. Your fantasy is over.
Like it or not. The second amendment was for a generation of REAL MEN with principles. You claim to be a lawyer, so we already know how much of a real man you are and as for your principles - well, you claim to be a lawyer.
Why not just give it up? Admit there's no standing up to anything any more and that it's only idiots who want these weapons.
Seriously - you'll be safer that way.
-
Let me ask you.
How much are you going to whine about your government before you rise up against it?
The second amendment is defunct. You don't need the guns because you are too weak to rise up anyway.
So - you will be the big man and post on getbig, defending the rights of someone with a set of balls to rise up against the government. Only the people you are defending don't exist. They are just keyboard warriors just like you who would soil their pants in the face of a trained force. Ain't no big balled guys to rise up any more. Your fantasy is over.
Like it or not. The second amendment was for a generation of REAL MEN with principles. You claim to be a lawyer, so we already know how much of a real man you are and as for your principles - well, you claim to be a lawyer.
Why not just give it up? Admit there's no standing up to anything any more and that it's only idiots who want these weapons.
Seriously - you'll be safer that way.
So is the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 6th, and 9th, anendment worthless too?
Typical slave mentality you have.
Again - tell me - what is the right amount of ammo one should be able to have?
-
O'reilly in particular makes me want to kill myself.
This is the same fucking ignorant argument everyone uses, they hear "assault rifle" and automatically picture a belt fed machine gun firing 800 RPM.
Idiots, the lot of them.
-
So is the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 6th, and 9th, anendment worthless too?
Typical slave mentality you have.
Again - tell me - what is the right amount of ammo one should be able to have?
For you - the right amount of ammo is a clip full.
You don't hunt.
You need a gun for home protection and if you need more than a clip full, you are screwed already.
You will never be a part of a militia that will rise up against government injustice, you are far too busy posting on getbig for that.
-
Wednesday, 25 July 2012 10:35
Bill O’Reilly’s Anti-gun Blarney
Written by Selwyn Duke
http://thenewamerican.com/opinion/selwyn-duke/item/12204-bill-o%E2%80%99reilly%E2%80%99s-anti-gun-blarney
We expect anti-gun nonsense from people such as Bill Moyers and Little Big Gulp Bloomberg, but we might hope that Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly wouldn’t evoke an eye-rolling “Oh, really!” when discussing the subject. But as the crusty commentator further proved last night while arguing with a guest, Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), he still hasn’t done his homework on the firearms issue.
In full-fire mode while talking about the Aurora tragedy with Chaffetz, O’Reilly insisted that there should be special reporting to the FBI when people purchase, as he put it, “heavy weapons … mortars, howitzers, machine guns.” The ignorance displayed through that comment is profound.
First, if we instituted O’Reilly’s policy, obtaining a mortar, howitzer, or machine gun would be far easier than it currently is, as such weapons are tightly controlled under the National Firearms Act. In fact, the hoops one must jump through to purchase such weaponry include, but may not be limited to, filling out a National Firearms Act application; getting permission from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF); and having your weapon registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. Moreover, you may have to satisfy local-government requirements as well. Anyway, the upshot is that it’s extremely difficult to obtain such a weapon legally, and possessing one that’s unregistered can land you in prison for 10 years.
Second, O’Reilly clearly doesn’t know what a “heavy weapon” is; in fact, he actually said, “If you sell heavy weaponry, alright, automatics, semi-automatics, ammunition,” and foolishly was taken aback when Congressman Chaffetz contradicted his notion that an AK-47 is “heavy armor.” But a heavy weapon is not a seven-pound AR-15, which was used in the Aurora shooting, or an AK-47; both are classified as “light” weapons. Because of this, even when they are configured to fire fully automatic, they aren’t called machine guns; they are known as sub-machine guns.
Yet the AR-15s and AK-47s readily available to the public — and this includes the one used in Aurora — aren’t any kind of machine gun. Like most firearms sold today, they’re configured to fire semi-automatic, which means one round is released with every trigger pull.
Why did O’Reilly make this mistake? Because like most journalists, he sees a gun with a military appearance — one he has seen fired fully automatic in movies countless times — and assumes it’s a machine gun. But this is no different than seeing a Porsche body with a Hugo chassis and engine and assuming it can do 0 to 60 in 4.8 seconds. Look under the hood, O’Reilly.
Also note, once again, that obtaining an actual machine gun is as difficult as acquiring a bazooka.
In his interview, O’Reilly also mentioned how Aurora shooter James Holmes purchased 60,000 rounds of ammunition without setting off alarm bells. Well, first, Holmes had bought 6,000 rounds, not 60,000. More significantly, however, it isn’t unusual for good people to make such large purchases. Why? Because a professional or hobby shooter can use 500 rounds in one two-hour session and thousands over the course of a week. Moreover, many today stockpile ammo for the same reason they do food and water: If there’s a disaster resulting in social breakdown, such things will disappear and may not be available for a long while. It’s also the case that ammo sometimes goes on sale, prompting gun owners to buy in bulk to save money.
I’ll also add that Holmes needed only a few hundred rounds to kill as he did, even if he was a bad shot.
Next, O’Reilly indicated that Holmes had “heavy duty” rounds. Not only is there no such classification, but the fact is that the round fired in the Aurora AR-15 and most other AR-15s is a relatively light round known as a .223 (5.56mm). This is the same small caliber as a .22 used in a Marlin target rifle; however, the bullet is different, and it is a high-velocity round.
Lastly, what makes this paranoia about the AR-15 even more ridiculous is that this firearm was not the most formidable weapon Holmes wielded in Aurora. His 12-gauge shotgun was — at least insofar as close-quarter firing against targets without body armor goes.
In summary, I’ve seldom seen more misconceptions packed into a five-minute interview than O’Reilly’s sorry Tuesday display. And he was passionate about it, too. When Congressman Chaffetz told him, “You are misinformed; you are totally misinformed,” O’Reilly shot back, “No! “You’re wrong!”
No, Mr. O’Reilly, you’re wrong. Very, very wrong.
Anyway, nothing on the books or that O’Reilly proposed would have stopped James Holmes, who had a clean record and no contact with law enforcement except for a traffic ticket.
Of course, O’Reilly did say to the congressman that he believes in the Second Amendment, and that’s good. But we should also believe in not abusing the First Amendment, and that’s what uninformed blather does.
Confucius once said, “Wisdom is, when you know something, knowing that you know it; and when you do not know something, knowing that you do not know it.”
As you would say, Mr. O’Reilly, wise up.
-
For you - the right amount of ammo is a clip full.
You don't hunt.
You need a gun for home protection and if you need more than a clip full, you are screwed already.
You will never be a part of a militia that will rise up against government injustice, you are far too busy posting on getbig for that.
LMFAO!
What if I want to go target shooting?
-
LMFAO!
What if I want to go target shooting?
To what end, though?
Do you want to own a gun for the reasons the founding fathers gave you the rights?
I ask because you keep quoting these rights, you are clearly unhappy with your government but all you do is sit on your ass posting on getbig.
There will be no uprising. People like you don't need target practice. You need knitting lessons. Nice scarf to keep you warm at night complaining about your communist government.
-
To what end, though?
Do you want to own a gun for the reasons the founding fathers gave you the rights?
I ask because you keep quoting these rights, you are clearly unhappy with your government but all you do is sit on your ass posting on getbig.
There will be no uprising. People like you don't need target practice. You need knitting lessons. Nice scarf to keep you warm at night complaining about your communist government.
How about its none of your fucking business what i do so long as I don't harm you?
-
Let me ask you.
How much are you going to whine about your government before you rise up against it?
The second amendment is defunct. You don't need the guns because you are too weak to rise up anyway.
So - you will be the big man and post on getbig, defending the rights of someone with a set of balls to rise up against the government. Only the people you are defending don't exist. They are just keyboard warriors just like you who would soil their pants in the face of a trained force. Ain't no big balled guys to rise up any more. Your fantasy is over.
Like it or not. The second amendment was for a generation of REAL MEN with principles. You claim to be a lawyer, so we already know how much of a real man you are and as for your principles - well, you claim to be a lawyer.
Why not just give it up? Admit there's no standing up to anything any more and that it's only idiots who want these weapons.
Seriously - you'll be safer that way.
So off base and foolish that you've absolutely surpassed all expectations of ignorance I though I could possibly experience on this board.
Insane
-
How about its none of your fucking business what i do so long as I don't harm you?
I think this is at the crux of it.
Does the government get to tell me how many cars I can have based on what they believe I need?
Does the government get to tell me how many firearms I have based on whether or not Im a member of a militia? Did the founding fathers believe we HAD to be in a militia to bear arms? I dont think so, militia's generally form in a time of need)
You start going down the "You cant have that because the government doesnt believe you need it", well thats a slippery slope.
-
I think this is at the crux of it.
Does the government get to tell me how many cars I can have based on what they believe I need?
Does the government get to tell me how many firearms I have based on whether or not Im a member of a militia? Did the founding fathers believe we HAD to be in a militia to bear arms? I dont think so, militia's generally form in a time of need)
You start going down the "You cant have that because the government doesnt believe you need it", well thats a slippery slope.
-
Seems fair.
if the government of the USA decides to point their weapons inwards, what the fnck you going to do anyway?
The people of Iraq didn't possess anywhere near a fraction of the fire power every US citizen currently does. They held off the US government for close to a decade. On top of that, it's debatable whether or not the military would completely turn on the people.
-
feinswine is a documented extremist. What she is suggested is not something we will ever see. Worrying about it be silly.
Obama has left guns around. He's scared to even mention the word - ANYTHING to motivate the right-wing. He has been neutralizing their rallying cries one by one. NO WAY he 'goes there'. It would be an instant loss in the 2012 election.
Guys - Romney has signed more AWBs than obama has. think on that.
-
The people of Iraq didn't possess anywhere near a fraction of the fire power every US citizen currently does. They held off the US government for close to a decade. On top of that, it's debatable whether or not the military would completely turn on the people.
They wouldnt.
Well over 50% would join the citizens, easily.
Most people dont take their oath lightly.
-
I think this is at the crux of it.
Does the government get to tell me how many cars I can have based on what they believe I need?
Does the government get to tell me how many firearms I have based on whether or not Im a member of a militia? Did the founding fathers believe we HAD to be in a militia to bear arms? I dont think so, militia's generally form in a time of need)
You start going down the "You cant have that because the government doesnt believe you need it", well thats a slippery slope.
Not at all.
Some people want to fuck children but the law prevents it, for the greater good.
Some people want to drive the highways at 150mph but the law prevents it for the greater good.
Some people want to eat French Cheese that has been matured less than 60 days but the law prevents it for the greater good.
Fact is - there is no slippery slop and if there is, you are already on it.
The only reason you support gun ownership is because you were brought up to believe it was right. This is why so many Europeans are anti-gun and so many Americans pro-gun. There is no rationality behind it, it is an ingrained belief, taught from birth.
Fact is - owning these guns makes no sense. Quoting the founding fathers makes no sense. It is just you've been brainwashed from birth to think a certain way and you can't think outside the box.
-
pedro, you dont think americans should be allowed to carry guns?
or you just don't like the high capacity magazines?
-
How about its none of your fucking business what i do so long as I don't harm you?
So your amendments are now not an issue? It's a privacy thing?
I'd say it's my business when some idiot comes into a cinema and starts shooting around me.
If you could just quote a legitimate reason for owning a gun, I'd buy into it. Still - you don't have one, other than those hundred year old documents for written for different times.
These guns ain't really going to help you rise up against your government when there's drones in the sky that could shoot a dildo up your ass from 5 miles up.
So what excuses are you left with? Sport? Well so is chicken fighting but I don't see you defending that?
Self defence? Sure - buy a handgun - you need anything bigger than that to defend your Bronx appartment? Very unlikely.
There's just no reason to have these weapons any more.
-
So your amendments are now not an issue? It's a privacy thing?
I'd say it's my business when some idiot comes into a cinema and starts shooting around me.
If you could just quote a legitimate reason for owning a gun, I'd buy into it. Still - you don't have one, other than those hundred year old documents for written for different times.
These guns ain't really going to help you rise up against your government when there's drones in the sky that could shoot a dildo up your ass from 5 miles up.
So what excuses are you left with? Sport? Well so is chicken fighting but I don't see you defending that?
Self defence? Sure - buy a handgun - you need anything bigger than that to defend your Bronx appartment? Very unlikely.
There's just no reason to have these weapons any more.
LOL. Yeah, lets trust clowns like obama/holder with control over all weapons when we have all seen how well that's worked out in Mexico.
-
Not at all.
Some people want to fuck children but the law prevents it, for the greater good.
Some people want to drive the highways at 150mph but the law prevents it for the greater good.
Some people want to eat French Cheese that has been matured less than 60 days but the law prevents it for the greater good.
Fact is - there is no slippery slop and if there is, you are already on it.
The only reason you support gun ownership is because you were brought up to believe it was right. This is why so many Europeans are anti-gun and so many Americans pro-gun. There is no rationality behind it, it is an ingrained belief, taught from birth.
Fact is - owning these guns makes no sense. Quoting the founding fathers makes no sense. It is just you've been brainwashed from birth to think a certain way and you can't think outside the box.
Makes no sense to you maybe.
Makes perfect sense to me.
BTW your argument is silly, no one says you cant own a car capable of driving 150, just that you cant do it on a public road. Do you want to ban all fast cars, even though they have purpose at sporting events?
I own firearms I hunt with. I eat what I kill.
I own firearms to protect my home and my family.
I also have military training, and if things ever went south, I would be one of the first to join a militia.
I will NOT go without a fight, and I will not give up what the founding father fought for just because people from other countries don't agree with it.
-
pedro, you dont think americans should be allowed to carry guns?
or you just don't like the high capacity magazines?
I certainly think you should be able to have weapons suitable for legal endeavours.
A hunting rifle for instance. If hunting is legal, then I can see why the sporting man would want a rifle. A sportsman would need a weapon befitting his sport. He would not need a minigun to shoot deer, this is not sport.
For home defence, nothing more than a handgun, you would be screwed if somehow more were needed.
For 'being part of a militia' - well - considering 33's constant whining on here, we can figure that the American male is beyond joining militias and would prefer to complain on teh interweb instead. For this, no weapon other than a sharp tongue is required.
Now - being legal should not equate to giving every nutcase access to a weapon. People that order 60,000 rounds off da internet and dye their hair red to look like Batman characters are worthy of a review.
I do understand the social conditioning that Americans have gone through and a such I understand that it will be a number of generations till this issue is resolved.
-
I will NOT go without a fight, and I will not give up what the founding father fought for just because people from other countries don't agree with it.
yes you will.
What the founding fathers fought for has already gone.
Much was said about it on teh interweb.
Where were you?
-
yes you will.
What the founding fathers fought for has already gone.
Much was said about it on teh interweb.
Where were you?
In the military.
I dont believe everything they fought for is gone, and I dont believe that I should just "give up" because you said so.
As for your other post, miniguns arent legal to buy from your average citizen, so thats a worthless argument as well.
You cannot buy ANY fully automatic weapon without a class 3 license, which is not easy to get.
Assault rifles are the same as an semi-automatic hunting rifle.
-
In the military.
I dont believe everything they fought for is gone, and I dont believe that I should just "give up" because you said so.
As for your other post, miniguns arent legal to buy from your average citizen, so thats a worthless argument as well.
You cannot buy ANY fully automatic weapon without a class 3 license, which is not easy to get.
Assault rifles are the same as an semi-automatic hunting rifle.
Pedro - you cite traffic laws - most limits are 65 - so why should a person be able to buy a corvette or a bike going 180mph
-
I think this is at the crux of it.
Does the government get to tell me how many cars I can have based on what they believe I need?
Does the government get to tell me how many firearms I have based on whether or not Im a member of a militia? Did the founding fathers believe we HAD to be in a militia to bear arms? I dont think so, militia's generally form in a time of need)
You start going down the "You cant have that because the government doesnt believe you need it", well thats a slippery slope.
No.. but they tell you who you can Marry, if a woman can have an abortion... etc
its Weird
-
No.. but they tell you who you can Marry, if a woman can have an abortion... etc
its Weird
Yeah, I dont agree with that either.
-
No.. but they tell you who you can Marry, if a woman can have an abortion... etc
its Weird
They shouldnt do that either.
i would make an agreement any day with abortion activists or gays that so long as they leave my 2nd amendment rights alone i will leave them alone to do what they want.
-
You really don't understand the history of this country do you?
The 2nd amendment is clearly not about hunting or home defense.
This right here... You need millions of rounds if you need to stop a tyrannical government.
Some people are just ridiculous.
-
Refreshing to see Americans still value their 2nd Amendment Rights.
-
Refreshing to see Americans still value their 2nd Amendment Rights.
Once you start with shitting all over one right - it never ends.
Why do you need to read radical pamhlets?
Why do you need to watch violent movies?
Why do you need to worship fake religions?
Why do you need to drive a sports car?
Why do you need to . . . . . . . . . .
-
Once you start with shitting all over one right - it never ends.
Why do you need to read radical pamhlets?
Why do you need to watch violent movies?
Why do you need to worship fake religions?
Why do you need to drive a sports car?
Why do you need to . . . . . . . . . .
It's such a slippery slope, many of these ignorant savages don't understand that.
Look at "Freedom of Speech" in the UK. They use to be known for it. Now they're banning Michael Savage and Geert Wilders from entering. ::)
-
Can you imagine the government saying "This person can't enter the country because we disagree with his political opinions".
THAT IS INSANE!
-
It's such a slippery slope, many of these ignorant savages don't understand that.
Look at "Freedom of Speech" in the UK. They use to be known for it. Now they're banning Michael Savage and Geert Wilders from entering. ::)
It is not a slipperly slope.
What you will find is that different cultures have different rules.
People grow up with those rules and hold them dearly. They are abritrary though. There is no rhyme or reason to them.
The US doesn't have more freedoms than most western nations, just a different set of rules.
It is quite clear that 'rising up agains the government' is not going to happen with or without assault rifles. There's drones flying above your 'free' cities for heavens sake.
It's like taking a pea shooter to a gun fight. If you want the ability to rise up, you'd better be getting something in a lot heavier than a machine gun.
Still - if it helps you sleep at night.
-
It is not a slipperly slope.
What you will find is that different cultures have different rules.
People grow up with those rules and hold them dearly. They are abritrary though. There is no rhyme or reason to them.
The US doesn't have more freedoms than most western nations, just a different set of rules.
It is quite clear that 'rising up agains the government' is not going to happen with or without assault rifles. There's drones flying above your 'free' cities for heavens sake.
It's like taking a pea shooter to a gun fight. If you want the ability to rise up, you'd better be getting something in a lot heavier than a machine gun.
Still - if it helps you sleep at night.
That's ridiculous... The people who fly those drones are still people... While we may not have all of the arms that the military have, we can come pretty damn close... We also have 300 Million Citizens... That's a hell of a lot more people than in the military.
-
It is not a slipperly slope.
What you will find is that different cultures have different rules.
People grow up with those rules and hold them dearly. They are abritrary though. There is no rhyme or reason to them.
The US doesn't have more freedoms than most western nations, just a different set of rules.
It is quite clear that 'rising up agains the government' is not going to happen with or without assault rifles. There's drones flying above your 'free' cities for heavens sake.
It's like taking a pea shooter to a gun fight. If you want the ability to rise up, you'd better be getting something in a lot heavier than a machine gun.
Still - if it helps you sleep at night.
Why do you insist on telling us "it wont happen"?
And you act like our military is just going to smile and do whatever the politicians tell them.
They wont.
And yes, we would be able to do it, and it wouldnt be like taking a pea shooter to a gunfight.
Our government should fear its citizens, and that fear is what should keep them from going overboard. Its clearly not going to be there morals - its pretty obvious most of our politicians have none.
I dont know where youre going with this defeatists attitude, its like youre telling us "You cant beat them so why bother caring?", which is stupid and wrong.
Its like you have no idea what our citizens, our government, and our military are about or capable of.
-
So - exactly how hard does the US government have to shaft it's citizens before they rise up?
Cause according to 33 - there's currently a communist takeover of the White House.
Citizens of the US ain't going to rise up. Most are too fat to rise up off the sofa.
-
So - exactly how hard does the US government have to shaft it's citizens before they rise up?
Cause according to 33 - there's currently a communist takeover of the White House.
Citizens of the US ain't going to rise up. Most are too fat to rise up off the sofa.
the colonists took a lot of shit before rising up. It was not overnight.
-
So - exactly how hard does the US government have to shaft it's citizens before they rise up?
Cause according to 33 - there's currently a communist takeover of the White House.
Citizens of the US ain't going to rise up. Most are too fat to rise up off the sofa.
Dont know how hard they have to push. Its going to be a buildup, not one particular thing.
I cant figure out if youre serious or not, or just trolling 333, but you can say we aren't going to rise up all you want - doesnt make it true.
If and/or when the time is right, it will happen. We may not need to - thats not the point. The point is to keep them scared so they dont TRY to take over, which is what having armed and dangerous citizens does to a government.
-
So - exactly how hard does the US government have to shaft it's citizens before they rise up?
Cause according to 33 - there's currently a communist takeover of the White House.
Citizens of the US ain't going to rise up. Most are too fat to rise up off the sofa.
We are way too divided ... not going to happen.. Nothing common to rally behind... And then some people agree with certian policies simply because it falls in line with the majority of their parties talking points and not really a real belief. Just something their talking head got behind. Its funny because those same ideals are agendas pushed by... woah woah, I forgot this was getbig for a second... We here are a microcosm of America...you wonder why we cant get the shaft by the govt... its because we like to stay divided.. and can politicize any and everything under the sun.. no progress at all.
-
We are way too divided ... not going to happen.. Nothing common to rally behind... And then some people agree with certian policies simply because it falls in line with the majority of their parties talking points and not really a real belief. Just something their talking head got behind. Its funny because those same ideals are agendas pushed by... woah woah, I forgot this was getbig for a second... We here are a microcosm of America...you wonder why we cant get the shaft by the govt... its because we like to stay divided.. and can politicize any and everything under the sun.. no progress at all.
Only about 1/3 of the population originally supported the revolution at the time from what i read.
BTW - how are we supposed to be "united" when you have 2 drastically different ideaologies at odds now?
I will never "unite" with leftist progressives who seek a police state consuming all of the private sector and trying to run everyones' lives from cradle to grave.
-
Only about 1/3 of the population originally supported the revolution at the time from what i read.
BTW - how are we supposed to be "united" when you have 2 drastically different ideaologies at odds now?
I will never "unite" with leftist progressives who seek a police state consuming all of the private sector and trying to run everyones' lives from cradle to grave.
I feel you.. Ill never Unite with people who want to control peoples lives either... telling them who they can marry, telling them what they can do with their body. And dont get me started on Weed laws... and Patriot Act.. I hate government control
-
I feel you.. Ill never Unite with people who want to control peoples lives either... telling them who they can marry, telling them what they can do with their body. And dont get me started on Weed laws... and Patriot Act.. I hate government control
Look - personally, i think the gay marriage issue is a complete joke. Let em get married, after a few years, people wont even notice or care. Gays will rue the day they wanted to get married.
Abortion is not going anywhere anytime soon. Our jails are already too full, are we going to put women and docs in jail too?
Weed - never smoked pot - but War on Drugs is a failure and fuels gun violence, black market, and gangs. We have a ban on pot - look how well that worked out? Total fail. If people want something bad enough, a black market will always rise to feed the desire.
-
Look - personally, i think the gay marriage issue is a complete joke. Let em get married, after a few years, people wont even notice or care. Gays will rue the day they wanted to get married.
Abortion is not going anywhere anytime soon. Our jails are already too full, are we going to put women and docs in jail too?
Weed - never smoked pot - but War on Drugs is a failure and fuels gun violence, black market, and gangs. We have a ban on pot - look how well that worked out? Total fail. If people want something bad enough, a black market will always rise to feed the desire.
Oh wow... are you a republican?
-
Oh wow... are you a republican?
I am a libertarian who often votes republican since where I live the democratic party machine always jacks our taxes.