Claire Wolfe and Liz Michael say shoot the bastards

What happened in New Orleans is cause for grave concern, but Ms. Michael's rant is more hysterics than reason based on actual events.

The one day that there were notable confiscations going on, the police were operating under the presumption that the city was going to be totally evacuated. Isn't forceable removal from one's home at least as serious an issue as (temporary) confiscation of firearms?

And honestly, who thinks the NOPD is more deserving of criticism than certain other agencies whose missions are to violate enshrined rights?
 
Wow, Jim. I've never been to Lizzie's site before. Now I've got to wash my computer out with Chlorox and figure out some way to disinfect the phone lines. Might have to incinerate my hard disk and burn the monitor as well.

She makes the Black Panthers look like pussycats. Thanks a lot. :barf:
 
The question is thus:

Is it possible to have a situation when it's time to do that in a republic - or a democracy - where free speech still exists? At what point is it time to shoot the bastards?
 
Losing our freedoms is a slow downhill slide, not a rollercoaster ride. So there may not be a definable point at which we should revolt...

Personally if I were a founding father I would have said the second a politician calls for restriction of firearms in any way shape or form, would be the time for an assassination and revolt.
 
At what point is it time to shoot the bastards?
Click to expand...
When a long train of abuses and usurpations evinces a desire to reduce the people under absolute despotism.

(Or something like that, just going from memory here.)
 
Publius, that train has been going by for the past seventy or eighty years. It's been going by so long they've had to change engineers from time to time. First, it was FDR who cracked the throttle, though some say it was Lincoln, then Truman, etc. George Bush II is just the most recent engineer and he shows no interest in slowing the train down or even changing tracks.
Prior to the last "election," when people were throwing arguments around regarding the qualifications of both Bush and Kerry, I (and a lot of others) pointed out that they would both lead us down the primrose path to Socialism, but that Bush would do it more slowly. Now, I must say I'm re-thinking my stand: Kerry wouldn't have had a lock on both houses of congress to help him and thus may have been hampered a bit.
Whatever... We've made our bed and now we have to sleep in it. Who was it that said we get the government we deserve? He truly was a prophet.
 
"If you add up the numbers of his name using the Chaldean System you get 3+5+7+2+3+5 for George, +6+1+3+2+5+2 for Walker, and +2+6+3+5 for Bush, which adds up to a total of 60 = 6+0 = 6. Once again the number is still 6..

But hold on, because we’re not through yet."



Yes you are. :barf:

JT
 
On the other hand, gun confiscation may be a sufficient tripwire because the primary one, censorship, can be fully implemented only after the citizenry has been disarmed.
Click to expand...
That person is confused, cntrline. Disarmament is primary. It's the mistake we only get to make once.
 
A little too rad for me. However, since I was born my rights and privacy have steadily eroded and accelerated after 9/11. My original Social Security card said, "Not for Identification Purposes" and the government swore it would never be your "number" because that is what they do in communist countries. My military ID is not my SS # like the military does now.
 
Glad she wasn't my mother, I would have been a victim of S,S, and S along time ago!!!! I agree with some of the ideology but the way she expresses it comes across as radical and makes the right look like the whacko left. I feel that the Mayor Adoplh Nagin is a lunatic and should be thrown out of office and put on trial for incompetence resulting in many deaths. I also agree our government is getting out of control in some ways but we have to blame the people who vote these losers into office time and again.
 
Most liberals see the constitution as the enemy unless the freedom of speech is THEIRS and theirs only, when a conservative talks their mind and the Libs dont like it, its called hate speech. Most Liberals like Hillary Rodham feel that its an outdated document that needs to be rewritten, but by them and according to their beliefs!
The two most threatening words to most hardcore Liberals: Constitution ( especially second amend.) and God.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top