DEMOCRATS VOW TO TAKE UP ARMS ! ! !

O

onecoyote

Moderator
So the democrats think that they have been denied the valid hand count. Never mind that they have not called for a uniform, statewide recount standard. Never mind that thay have tried to deny 25,000 republican absentee ballots or tried to deny valid military overseas ballots.

Consider, for a moment, a possible situation where the democrats think they have had their rights so trampled to a degree to which they think they have no recourse, that they have been subjugated unjustly, that they have had their rights denied in an unconstitutional way to a degree which thay consider unbearable. (kind of like what they have been trying to do with gun rights).

For just one moment consider the situation where all that democrats hold dear is destroyed. Destroyed to the point where they have no hope of EVER getting what they think is right and just passed into law.

So what do they do? What would they do were their rights trampled over time and time again? What would they do were their rights SMASHED, SMASHED and SMASHED again to the point where they might actually considered themselves second class citizens? What would they do considering that they feel so strongly about their rights and that they have been denied?

Do you think the democrats could possibly resort to arms to defend the freedoms they have come to take for granted and hold so dear? Do you think they might raise the call to arms to protect their rights?


Do you think that thus they may actually support the right to bear arms so that they may reserve the right to resort to force to acheive their valued goals? Personally, I don't think they have the guts. They will, therefore, ultimatly loose unless they work to preserve the right of force of arms.

Do you think it is possible that the democrats can be put into a defensive position to the point where thay may actually support the right to bear arms to protect what they think are constitutional rights?

Do you think that their percived lack of justice in the vote for president will cause them to support the right to bear arms?? (I doubt it).

They're too gutless to do that, they don't beleive in the constitution and the rule of law strongly enough to do that. They think that all that is needed is to put forth law like the banning of guns and they will get what they want and that therefore all will be right. Their foolishness in supporting only select parts of the constitution (take that to mean everything BUT the second amendment) will be their demise.

What would it take to drive the democrats to the point where they would actually support the second amendment so that they too may reserve it to ultimatly protect their rights??

As I see it, the only way to convince democrats to support the right to bear arms is to threaten the rights they hold dear in such a way that they would actually feel they have no other choice but to support the right to bear arms........just like they have been doing to gun owners.

I suggest we start with threatening freedom of speech in whatever manner would be considered a credible threat to that freedom. We should make media first amendment supporters beleive that thier rights are genuinely threatened and then carry it out into actual practice. I think there is no danger in that as gun owners and second amendment activists maintain the force of arms which will ultimatly serve to protect our freedoms. Those of us who bear arms are the ultimate, supreme arbiters of freedom.

Freedom of speech would ultimatly be re-instituted once the perveyors of that right understand that freedom of speech is protected by the second amemdment. Do you think that will be enough to convince the media that our second amendment right is at least as important as their first amendment right?

What would it take to convince democrats to resort to the use of arms? What would it take for them to champion the second amendment to the point where we no longer have to worry about that constitutional right being denied to us?

Can a way be found to undermine the first amendment and would we be willing to go down that road? The first amendment activists are willing to go down the road to banning the second amendment so why should we not be willing to go down the same road when it comes to their/our rights??
 
I would ask again..............

First amendment activists (media) are willing to go down the road to banning the second amendment....... so why should we not be willing to go down the same road when it comes to banning their first amendment rights??

I think that banning the second amendment threatens all of our rights. Why do we think protecting the first amendment alone would protect our rights?? Especially when you consider just how biased the media really is and how they work everything against our second amendment rights.

Let me add that the first steps at limiting first amendment freedoms are already being taken. Note the current debate about the effects of television on children killing children....Columbine. There is a conclusive link between violence and it's effect on our youth. The media and its effects on society are clear. So do you continue to protect freedom of speech despite this link to violence in our youth and the negative effect they have on society?? At what point do you say enough when it comes to freedom of speech? The negative effect on society given to us by freedom of speech is and has been far more damaging then the freedom to bear arms. One need look only at our children for proof of that.

[Edited by onecoyote on 12-10-2000 at 11:47 PM]
 
Look around the world: the leftists have started plenty of wars and, even when they lose, the damage tends to be heavy. I don't expect a fight over this election but if I did, I'd pray I were wrong. Civil wars don't live up to their name.
 
onecoyote,

I understand your argument, and while it is an interesting thought experiment, it is impractical to implement.

On the one hand, if this experiment went forward, and the liberals do not bear arms, then we have weakened or done in our fundamental right to free speech.

On the other hand, if the liberals do revolt, we have created a Constitutional crisis that will ultimately be resolved through loss of life with one of two results: 1) The liberals win the war (unlikely) and rewrite the Constitution to fit their ideological views or 2) We win the war and are left with a nation divided and torn by civil war.

In each scenario, we all lose.

I am not saying that there are no conditions under which revolt is justified. Let's just not experiment with it...

Your argument has merit in the public debate. If you can get it into the mainstream arena of discourse, so much the better. The problem is that liberals are intellectually dishonest and do not use logic and reason to govern themselves, let alone rely upon them to govern others. The points you make will go unnoticed or unacknowledged.

Ken
 
onecoyote asks:
First amendment activists (media) are willing to go down the road to banning the second amendment....... so why should we not be willing to go down the same road when it comes to banning their first amendment rights??
Click to expand...

How about, because it reduces us to their level?

How about, because our struggle is not just about guns, it's about freedom. You can't defend freedom by attacking freedom.

How about, because we'll look like fascists, confirming every damn lie and stereotype the gun grabbers like to spread regarding us?

How about, because attacking violent entertainment would put us in the same camp with Tipper Gore?

How about, because abridging free speech is also on the agenda for our adversary? After all, it's rare that establishment media suffers from speech restrictions, until near the very end of the game. It's usually guys like us who get our tongues cut out first.

How about, because some of us work in the entertainment and mass-media industries (you would truly be amazed), and you'll force us to either quit our jobs or quit the movement?

Studies linking violent media and movies to video games get misinterpreted in a way that confuses correlation with causation. It's the old "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" (after this, therefore because of this) logical fallacy.

Besides, let's say it's true that some of these "shooter" games are good at training kids how to shoot live targets. Do you want them on OUR side, or the other side? What effect do you think it would have on their attitudes towards us if we joined the anti-fun crowd?
 
Rented Gettysburg This PM

Talk of guns and war should fall second to political action and prayer. I doubt that mass violence will follow this election. I must say that I am convinced that there are two groups of very opposite minds as to where this country should go. Perhaps some external threat will eventually bring natural selection and balance. This election has opened my eyes.
 
I think the country is in for a rough road. A potential war looms on the horizon either in the Mid-East or surrounding the China and Taiwan area. Maybe both.

Then we have a very fragile economy. The stock market has been doing poor over the last year, the .com businesses are hurting/failing which will hurt the big businesses who supply equipment to them. Layoffs in IT and other industries are creaping up again in large numbers, mainly due to the failures, big companies having hiring freezes and cost reductions. So we are in for a recession as well it looks like. Inflation is rising as well.

I would at least prefer to have a president that will bolster the military. This will help the high tech companies and stocks as the DOD is a driving factor in technology. I don't believe Gore is up to the challenge.
Bush will certainly make a better manager of this kind of operating environment I believe. His proposed staff consists of some heavyweights who have dealt with this before.
 
I'm not sure many democrats, or Americans for that matter, would pick up guns to defend their politics. I say this because:

(1) The country is so big, with so many people, that few of us actually feel like we belong to the 'big picture' or that all of that wrangling that goes on in Washington has anything to do with us. As long as our job's still there in the morning and McDonalds is open for lunch we don't really care about the world outside our town. That is, few people actually understand how all of this affects US.

(2) For another thing, it takes a big step to go from carrying signs and writing your congressman to picking up a gun with honest intent to use it. We are made of much more delicate stuff than this nations' founders, to be sure. For the average american, guns are in the movies or video games. A real live fire-breathing weapon in our hands would be held as tenderly as a newborn baby. In other words, I'm not sure that most of us have the guts to start a fight, much less kill for ideals.

(3) We (as a nation) are lazy. We don't want to go fight and die for some 'quaint' concept of personal freedom. We want to go to the movies, or spend money at the mall. We don't really understand that our grandparents fought for these things that we now take for granted. They've always been there. We don't understand that, in many other countries, war is a real fact of life. Sure, we have some serious crime, but not the persistent widespread violence of the middle-east. That sort of thing couldn't happen here with our Hollywood, and Wall Street, and our Beverly Hills.

No, politics and votes won't be defended with violence. Maybe this group or that will get upset and you'll have a riot here and a scuffle there. But there's some good shows on thursday night so the uprising can't go on too late. We've got to get home. Now, when that home or livelihood is -directly- threatened...then you might see some angry gun-toting Americans. It has to be something big, real, first-hand, and shocking for us to even pause the game.
 
[mild_rant]

onecoyote: I can't see how you can defend one BOR item while attacking the substance of another. If we can do that then we can have outrageous bail for a Hershey bar theft, military B&Bs in our homes and at least 5 or 6 other treats. Sorry, the big "C" and BOR is what has - AND DOES - hold this country together in hard times... once you start "cut and paste" on these it all turns to worms. So my reply is an emphatic "NO".

RobertR: Far as I'm concerned we might start thinking isolationism again since I am tired of shoreing up every wobbly country in the world - and then suffering the "Yankee Go Home" crap that goes with most of it - the cost of which could have fixed many of our own problems including providing the $$$ for our defense when they go totally squirrely [sp]. Do you realize with all that $$$ in foreign "aid" we could have developed a Buck Rogers SDI-like defense that even included a solar powered national force field.

But, to get to my point - we've been feeding the world - we can feed ouselves. With reasonable care we can outlast people who want to slaughter people who then do them. The benefits are useful - in the long run, the herd(s) will be thinned and ... blah blah blah. We only have to remember that there is ALWAYS someone who wants to play King of the Hill so we will always be a target for "... enemies, foreign and domestic".

[/mild_rant]
-Andy
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First amendment activists (media) are willing to go down the road to banning the second amendment....... so why should we not be willing to go down the same road when it comes to banning their first amendment rights??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Beez;

Why not reduce ourselves to their level? It is obvious they have done whatever in any manner they choose to invalidate conservatives. They have gained the high ground because we stand on principle. Standing on principle is what lead British soldiers to stand in formation while we cut them down en mass. You got to be stupid to stand in line and volunteer to be shot. We should maintain our principles but we must fight as they fight.

Our struggle is not just about guns, it's about freedom.... but guns are integral to that freddom, for you cannot have one without the other. You think that you can't defend freedom by attacking freedom....... but as you know we can fight fire with fire.

We can work to make the media and the liberals think their freedoms are in jeopardy and then watch them resort to alternatives other than the freedom of speech which they happen to control and which they think is all that is needed to maintain freedom. The fallacy of this has never ceased to amaze me.

You may think that we all look like fascists........ but isn't it the liberals who really promote facizm by piecemeal removal of our freedoms? Isn't it really the liberals who act like facists with their efforts to remove us from our freedoms?

It is liberals who are the facists! That they seek to deny us our constitutional rights are proven by every damn lie and stereotype they like to spread regarding us. And they use the media they control to do it.

Attacking violent entertainment would bring us back to a more gentler time. It would instill more wholesome values in our youth. You sow what you reap. Sow violence within our youth and you will have more Columbines.

Abridging free speech is indeed on the agenda for our adversary. They call it "campaign finance reform". Should it be implemented in it's present form it would make illegal the ability for you and I to join forces and contribute money to the spokesman of our choice. We would even be banned from publishing "VOTER GUIDES" to people of like mind!!!

This proposed law is most vigorously promoted by the media. Here is just another example where they seek to use their right to freedom of speech to deny the people their right to freedom of speech. It is indeed rare that establishment media suffers from speech restrictions, until near the very end of the game. That is why we need to be in the forefront at denying them their rights to whatever extent we can muster. We should at least mandate laws that hold as sacrosanct fairness in reporting or maybe laws that "protect the children".

Some of you may work in the entertainment and mass-media industries but the loss of your jobs would be of little consequence in deference to the "GREATER GOOD".

Studies linking violent media and movies to video games get misinterpreted in a way that confuses correlation with causation. But that there is a link is clear to all sensible people. To argue otherwise depends on logical fallacy. The link between violence and television is clear and has been documented by multiple reports from multiple Surgeon Generals of the Untited States.

The current media seeks to guide and control your thinking towards what they view is the right path of society. Homosexual legitimacy is included in the mix yet some rights you hold dear are not included in that mix. You should not own a gun, you should not deny homosexuals in your Boy Scout troop, you should not be allowed on public land because you do damage to the environment.....and so on and so on until every aspect of your life is circumscribed in some manner as dictated by someone else.....the libewral way of good intentions. WELL? The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Edited by onecoyote on 12-11-2000 at 11:59 PM]
 
many interesting points & observations -

Got me thinking about "A Nation of Cowards". I tried to figure out who the cowards are, but I couldn't find an adequate set of labels. Our problems stem from a poverty of the spirit that neither side is immune to. Since we're looking at a 50/50 split, it's real clear there is NO OBVIOUS MORAL HIGH GROUND.

Though I personnally think the Democrats are the more hypocritical, I can cite stupity and duplicity all around, and I think there has been a high degree of @$$holery and buffoonery in both camps (particularly the Dems, their weenieness is sooooo ofensive) but we're a LOOOONG way from being ready to start shootin' in any event, so cool it, OK? This trash talkin' isn't solving any problems. We (the public at large) have been dealt a most $h*tty hand, we need to start figuiring out a recovery strategy . . . we need to get our country back, and neither of them specialinterestbought&paid political (from the Greek 'poly -', meaning 'many', and 'ticks', small blood sucking parasites) organizations are going to help - hell, I'm going to bed-
M2
 
This Friday, December 15, is the 209th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. I'll be attending a luncheon to honor that event.

Damaging or destroying part of the Bill of Rights to aid one article / amendment is, IMHO, unethical and counter-productive. Interesting concept to test the staying power of liberal fascists, but not a very good idea in practice.

Count me on the other side of that formation, thank you.

Regards from AZ
 
What me worry?

Even if they (GoreSupporters) do take up arms, so what? LOL! I mean these are people that can't even hit a chad at point blank range right? I go to the range at least once a week and fire from 500 to 1000 rounds. I know how tough it is to hit a even a stationary target at 25 yards, even after close to 30 years of trying to. These losers are going to find out super fast that those machine guns they can buy on every street corner, and in every Super K and/or Wally world are as much hot air as Gore's speeches! Most of these Sore Loserman supporters think all they have to do is pick up a gun, and are instantly capable of shooting a gun out of someone's hand at 200 yards, with a .25 Raven.

ROTFLMAO, I can just see one of the Sore Loserman elite searching for one of those $39.95 .50cal "sniper rifles", they heard about. No, No, wait, it gets better! Imagine one of them runninig into a waiting period :) LOL! "I got a riot to go to this afternoon, whaddda you mean I got to wait a week" Or how 'bout this, "That .44magnum is HOW MUCH!!!???, well, I guess it's the baddest thing going so I'll take one. Now give me some bullets. GOOD GOSH ALMIGHTY! those bullets are more than little Ralphie's Luvox prescription!" WHOOO HOOO, what I wouldn't give to be there for some of those apples!

Naw, I'll sit it out in the below grade family room and let these losers shoot each other if they do manage to arm themselves and start letting rounds go in any direction.These folks are just simply clueless, and from past experience with their ilk, nothing but a lot of bluster and puffery. One or two of them in a group of a thousand may manage to get their hands on something other than a rock, and may even manage to put all the right parts where they should go, like magazines and such, but really, those are what are known as "Outside agitators".(Keep in mind, this thing as been better than the Super Bowl for the media, and the first shots fired at the Kent State shootings were thought to have been fired by an overzealous reporter.) They can have their armed revolt if they want since most of the arms are going to be flapping arms and waving hands. God forbid anyone should take them seriously and do something stupid over it, like send in the National Guard or something to put it down.
 
Losers Have No Integrity!

If I had spent my life fighting to ban guns, I would have to riot with something else.

So much for principle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top