GOP Candidate: If We Lose Elections, We Still Have Guns

imported post

darthmord wrote:

SouthernBoy wrote:

One thing that many Americans have either forgotten or have never been taught.The Framerssaw fit to include a number of safeguards in our founding documents. One of those items, perhaps the most important of all, is the fact that they reserved to the people the right to "throw off" despotic government and to institute new government as they saw fit.

Yes, gentlemen. We certainly do have the right to take up arms against the government should the need arise, to over throw it and provide "new Guards" for our "future Secutity". We not only have the right, but also the duty to do this. This can be found in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. We should all pick it up and read if from time to time.

Click to expand...

But but... the Federal Government has said it's illegal to attempt to overthrow the government. They said it's illegal! We don't have a right if they say it's illegal. Duh!

/end sarcasm

I'm continually amazed at the number of people who don't realize that our Founding Fathers would be domestic terrorists under today's world. Could you imagine locking up George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, John Adams, and other assorted luminaries?

I consider the Declaration of Independence to be our foundation document, one that was built on top of by the Constitution and finally roofed by the Bill of Rights.

If you live in the house of The People, then you live by our rules. The government at large isn't doing so.

Click to expand...

They were classic liberals. Interesting how this is. You see, in their time, the "classic liberal" was one who was very strong on individual rights, very limited government, and very suspect of government from the get go. I refer you to "Slouching Towards Gomorrah" by Robert Bork and "Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto" by Mark Levin for more on this.

Perhaps the most "radical" firebrands during the nations formation were Patrick Henry and George Mason. Thanks to those two gentlemen and their success in convincing James Madison to come over to their side, we have the Bill of Rights.

You're probably right. They all would have been vilified, scorned, despised, and locked up. Just what the British wanted in the first place.

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

This goes beyond recognition of the purposes of the 2A, which include the ability to take up arms against tyrannical government.

This is about taking up arms against this government under the mistaken assumption that it is tyrannical.

I hope that conservatives are far too conservative to be taken in by an extremist agenda posing as right wing populism.

Click to expand...

Not tyrannical? What do you call consistant, and in too many cases successful, attempts to deny us our Constitutionally guarenteed rights and intrusions into and attempts to controlour personal lives? A good example is this so called national health care plan, whichis nothing more than a intent to control our lives!

Pull your head out of the sand and look around you.

imported post

When I was 10 years old, I was Patrick Henry for Halloween.

You may sort my position from there.

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

This goes beyond recognition of the purposes of the 2A, which include the ability to take up arms against tyrannical government.

This is about taking up arms against this government under the mistaken assumption that it is tyrannical.

I hope that conservatives are far too conservative to be taken in by an extremist agenda posing as right wing populism.

Click to expand...

Your hope is falsely placed. They've drank the koolaid of, "any government that isn't pushing MY agenda is tyrannical." Thankfully, there's absolutely zero chance off them getting of their couches and internetz and doing anything about it.

imported post

Actually, Americans have been throwing a fit since January. For the first time in centuries we had Tea Parties. More and more are waking up and realizing that our Constitution has been trampled on and our rights have been stolen. These groupings of citizens will just get bigger and bigger until a flash point is reached, probably when government tries to quell it with arrests. At that point, we'll have another Revolution.

imported post

forever_frost wrote:

Actually, Americans have been throwing a fit since January. For the first time in centuries we had Tea Parties. More and more are waking up and realizing that our Constitution has been trampled on and our rights have been stolen. These groupings of citizens will just get bigger and bigger until a flash point is reached, probably when government tries to quell it with arrests. At that point, we'll have another Revolution.

Click to expand...

You really think it'll happen?

I think Americas are too spongy and spineless. The only hope I still have is that I will be able to PUBLICLY die on my feet when I refuse to live on my knees.

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

So you choose the cartridge box then?

Click to expand...

Adam Kokesh said it best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmsJe1S0z8w

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

forever_frost wrote:

You know, she's right. The 2nd is there to protect people against a tyranical government

Click to expand...

She was saying that the Obama administration is Marxist: therefore, if we don't succeed in getting rid of it in at the ballot box, we will need to take up arms against it.

Obama is no marxist, and this woman is a howling loon.

Click to expand...

Of course you'd say that Donkey, after all you drink from the same Kool-aid bottle. Is this a personal attack? Take it as you see it. How is the taking over of the Financial Industry and the Automobile Industry to be construed? Where in the Constitution does it give the power to the President to fire the CEO of a corperation? Where in the constitution does it say anything about the appointment of "Czars" of different areas of interest?
By his associations he in my mind is a Marxist. His Father was, he associated with a member of the Communist party in Hawaii, Bill Ayers is...the list goes on and on. George Soros funded his campaign. George Orwell wrote about all this in his book 1984. Wake up and smell the coffee. Hope you're happy with this mess because you voted for him. I did not and will not allow myself nor my family to be enslaved. AND by the way, if you have not read the Federalist papers, nor the constitution I suggest that you do. The 2nd Amendment is ALL about the defense against a tyrannical government. THAT was one of the greatest fears of the founding fathers. TYVM
Keep your powder dry!
edited for typo only

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

This goes beyond recognition of the purposes of the 2A, which include the ability to take up arms against tyrannical government.

This is about taking up arms against this government under the mistaken assumption that it is tyrannical.

I hope that conservatives are far too conservative to be taken in by an extremist agenda posing as right wing populism.

Click to expand...

Who's mistaken assumption Donkey? YOURS?

imported post

tyr·an·ny
n. pl. tyr·an·nies

1. A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.
2. The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler.
3. Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly: "I have sworn . . . eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man" (Thomas Jefferson).
4. 1. Use of absolute power.
   2. A tyrannical act.
5. Extreme harshness or severity; rigor.

[Middle English tyrannie, from Old French, from Late Latin tyrannia, from Greek turanniā, from turannos, tyrant.] The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Your evidence: Health Care reform; the Bush-Obama financial bailout; the appointment of "Czars;" and Jeffrey Ayers

Weak.

imported post

Guys, let's stay focused. Let's not waste time and energy arguing with a Huffington Post shill that has come over here just to distract us from what we really need to do to fight the battles that are thrown our way. Ignore and move on. Be the adult here......

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

tyr·an·ny
n. pl. tyr·an·nies

Click to expand...

1. Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly: "I have sworn . . . eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man" (Thomas Jefferson).

   Click to expand...

2. 1. Use of absolute power.

      Click to expand...

   2. A tyrannical act.

      Click to expand...

3. Extreme harshness or severity; rigor.

   Click to expand...

Your evidence: Health Care reform; the Bush-Obama financial bailout; the appointment of "Czars;" and Jeffrey Ayers

Weak.

Click to expand...

My ass weak, what more do you need? ONE, only one unconstitutional appointment,, Stimulus bill?? How about quadrupeling the deficit in 7 months? Keep drinkin koolaid donkey. Health care REFORM??? HOW?? The only reform that is needed is Tort reform. Limit the liability of doctors to incompetence, and limit the $$ of the lawsuits and health care costs will drop drastically. I refuse to pay for abortions and/or health care for those that WILL not care for themselves. Not for those that absolutely CANNOT. And BTW I never brought up health care reform, you did. You make me ill !

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

tyr·an·ny
n. pl. tyr·an·nies

1. A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.
2. The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler.
3. Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly: "I have sworn . . . eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man" (Thomas Jefferson).
4. 1. Use of absolute power.
   2. A tyrannical act.
5. Extreme harshness or severity; rigor.

[Middle English tyrannie, from Old French, from Late Latin tyrannia, from Greek turanniā, from turannos, tyrant.] The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Your evidence: Health Care reform; the Bush-Obama financial bailout; the appointment of "Czars;" and Jeffrey Ayers

Weak.

Click to expand...

In 1933, Chancelor Adolph Hitler took over as President of Germanyupon Hindenberg's death. Shortly afterwards he went to the Riechstag Assembly, with his SA in tow (hundreds of them), and insisted that they vote in favor of his "Enabling Act". They did so, under threat of violance by the SA, and Hitler became the supreme ruler of Germany....Der Furhor.

Obama has been attempting to get his own "Enabling Act" incrementally, via numerous legislation that he, Polosi, and Reid have been trying to cram through congress without anyone reading the bills. Many of these bills have attachments that transfer more discretionary power to the executive branch and away from the legislative. If this isn't stopped, WE WILL be faced with a dictator in the White Houseat some point, and just as happened to the German Riechstag in 1933, our legislative branch of government will become nothing more than a formality. We may not even have elections anymore.

I also see ACORN as Obama's SA (aka Brown Shirts, Jack Booted Thugs). They seem to have gotten away with intimidation at various poling places during the last election. Look for them to be out in greater force this next election and be prepare to kick some butt while your there.

imported post

RockyMtnScotsman wrote:

PAPACHUCK wrote:

SouthernBoy is spot on with his last two posts.

Why is this so hard for libs to understand?

Click to expand...

Because when you get right down to it, they're cowards. Simple as that.

Click to expand...

I don't know about that. Liberals have been pretty gutsy in advancing their civil rights agenda.

The Right has simply been hoping that better gun rights will fall into its lap, and the Right always advocates cooperation with government and compromise. Leftist organizations are far more aggressive and successful.

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

RockyMtnScotsman wrote:

PAPACHUCK wrote:

SouthernBoy is spot on with his last two posts.

Why is this so hard for libs to understand?

Click to expand...

Because when you get right down to it, they're cowards. Simple as that.

Click to expand...

I don't know about that. Liberals have been pretty gutsy in advancing their civil rights agenda.

The Right has simply been hoping that better gun rights will fall into its lap, and the Right always advocates cooperation with government and compromise. Leftist organizations are far more aggressive and successful.

Click to expand...

Do note that the Left's Civil Rights apply only to those who agree with them... If you disagree with them, woe be unto you. They have created compliance luxuries, not Civil Rights as they claim.

imported post

If you want to see tyranny read the proposed Obamacare Bill. It is outrageous, the government, if passed, will control your health care from cradle to grave and will have the power to decide when you die. That is the ultimate tyranny!!!

imported post

athecolonel wrote:

If you want to see tyranny read the proposed Obamacare Bill. It is outrageous, the government, if passed, will control your health care from cradle to grave and will have the power to decide when you die. That is the ultimate tyranny!!!

Click to expand...

That is a myth.

From "Democracy Prevails" Newsletter:


The House bill does include language that offers senior citizens free counseling meant to answer any possible end-of-life questions they may have. The counseling is voluntary and will provide professional, knowledgeable, and compassionate information to seniors on such issues as will preparation, medical power of attorney, resuscitation wishes, and other matters.

"Advance Care Planning Consultation" Would Provide Seniors With Professional Advice On Will Preparation, Power Of Attorney, And Other Complicated Issues. PolitiFact.com reported: "Sec. 1233 of the bill, labeled 'Advance Care Planning Consultation' details how the bill would, for the first time, require Medicare to cover the cost of end-of-life counseling sessions. According to the bill, 'such consultation shall include the following: An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to; an explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses; an explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.'" [PolitiFact.com, 7/16/09]]http://www.politifact.com%2Ftruth-o-meter%2Fstatements%2F2009%2Fjul%2F23%2Fbetsy-mccaughey%2Fmccaughey-claims-end-life-counseling-will-be-requi%2F]7/16/09][/b][/url]]


Counseling Is NOT Mandatory. In regards to the "mandatory" assertion, PolitiFact.com reported: "For his part, Keyserling said he and outside counsel read the language carefully to make sure that was not the case. 'Neither of us can come to the conclusion that it's mandatory.' he said. 'This new consultation is just like all in Medicare: it's voluntary.' 'The only thing mandatory is that Medicare will have to pay for the counseling,' said Dau." [PolitiFact.com, 7/16/09]]http://www.politifact.com%2Ftruth-o-meter%2Fstatements%2F2009%2Fjul%2F23%2Fbetsy-mccaughey%2Fmccaughey-claims-end-life-counseling-will-be-requi%2F]7/16/09][/b][/url]

Patients Suffer When Their Doctors Are Not Aware Of Their Wishes. According to CNN: "Discussing end-of-life care is difficult for everyone involved, but it should be done early on, doctors say. Many aging parents and grandparents resist talking about it because of the emotional pain the issue will cause their younger relatives; and the children who will become responsible don't want to appear ungrateful or self-serving by mentioning it, [Dr. Arthur Kellerman, Emory University] said. Many doctors don't want to talk about it either, he said. 'There are a lot of my colleagues who don't bother having that conversation. They just intubate them, and ship them up to an ICU, and say 'next,'' Kellerman said." [CNN.com, 7/23/09]]http://www.cnn.com%2F2009%2FHEALTH%2F07%2F23%2Fhealth.care.end.of.life%2F]7/23/09][/b][/url]


Consultation Will Include An Explanation Of The Patient's Choices. According to the Politico: "The provision states that as part of an advanced care consultation, an individual and practitioner shall have a consultation that includes 'an explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.'" [Politico, 7/28/09][/b]]


Health Care Facilities Have Been Required To Provide End-Of-Life Information To Patients Since 1990.][size=[font=Calibri] Politico reported: "The government has long encouraged medical providers to discuss such life and death issues with patients. Congress passed the [/font]Patient]http://www.cancer.org%2Fdocroot%2FMIT%2Fcontent%2FMIT_3_2X_The_Patient_Self-Determination_Act.asp]Patient Self-Determination Act][/b][/url] in 1990, requiring health care agencies, including hospitals and long-term care facilities to give patients information on state laws regarding advance directives such as a living will." [Politico, 7/28/09[/b]]

Bush Administration Outlined End-Of-Life Counseling. According to Politico: "In 2003, under the Bush administration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality issued a 20-page]http://www.ahrq.gov%2Fresearch%2Fendliferia%2Fendria.pdf]20-page report[/b][/url] outlining a five-part process for physicians to discuss end-of-life care with their patients." [Politico, 7/28/09[/b]]





[align=center]Media Matters Action Network[/align]



[align=center]See also the website of Earl Blumenauer, Member of Congress.[/align]
[align=center](Sorry for all the HTML)[/align]

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

This goes beyond recognition of the purposes of the 2A, which include the ability to take up arms against tyrannical government.

This is about taking up arms against this government under the mistaken assumption that it is tyrannical.

I hope that conservatives are far too conservative to be taken in by an extremist agenda posing as right wing populism.

Click to expand...

Donkey,

Do you know who gets to decide whether a government is sufficiently tyrranical that one must take up arms against it? Yup those tha actually have arms.

imported post

Thundar wrote:

The Donkey wrote:

This goes beyond recognition of the purposes of the 2A, which include the ability to take up arms against tyrannical government.

This is about taking up arms against this government under the mistaken assumption that it is tyrannical.

I hope that conservatives are far too conservative to be taken in by an extremist agenda posing as right wing populism.

Click to expand...

Donkey,

Do you know who gets to decide whether a government is sufficiently tyrranical that one must take up arms against it? Yup those tha actually have arms.

Click to expand...

Quite right!

imported post

This is why I like my state's constitution

Article 2a.[The Bearing of Arms.] All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

Article 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

Pretty damn clear.