NPR: I don't think that you can expect to have civil conversation with anybody... that's got a gun

Sonora Rebel · Oct 5, 2009

imported post

We have created too much law and no 'nuff justice. The 'law' has become an obstacle to the justice it is supposed to elicit. In essence... it's simply'clutter' and deliberate obfuscation. The name of the game is 'Crine and Punishment'... not criminal rights... not crime and talk about it... not crime and rehabilitation. PUNISHMENT! Real punishment. The type of punishment where you will see no more sneering mugshots of the captives... but real 'Ohhshit fear' in those face of what is about to transpire for their transgressions against civil decency and humanity. This... for the Bernie Madhoff's to the Roman Polanski's to the ghetto thug and all else in between. Whatever happened to 'Let the Punishment Fit The Crime'? We've become a nation of wimps... inthe prosecution of justice and war. Ohhh... the 'sanctity' of human life... irregardless of the habitual predatory nature of that life.

Corporal punishment... Capital Punishment should both be made public. None of this 'unusual' crap... None of this handwringing over the perp. Society deserves it's pound of flesh. Society deserves retribution. Society deserves to see justice meted out harshly where deserved. I'm talkin' public floggings and hangings... swiftly.

To the criminal element... you do this... expect this. Here's your visual. No three hots 'n a flop with TV and an execise room. Here's makin' little one's outta big ones on the chain gang 12 hours a day. Here's the whipping post... the stocks... or the hangmans noose or firing squad. If you cannot conduct yourself in a responsible and civil manner... If you predate upon honest people for your living... if you commit rape and molestation... if you assault people for no reason... you will be taken out of society and punished or executed. Period! These are the demands of civilization. This is justice. Anything less is a load of crap.

compmanio365 · Oct 5, 2009

imported post

Dunno.....sounds like pretty much what was intended on a free society. Simple rules: don't murder, don't steal.....other than that, as long as you aren't infringing on the rights of another, you should be left the hell alone. Sounds like my kind of utopia.

Tomahawk · Oct 5, 2009

imported post

compmanio365 wrote:

Dunno.....sounds like pretty much what was intended on a free society. Simple rules: don't murder, don't steal.....other than that, as long as you aren't infringing on the rights of another, you should be left the hell alone. Sounds like my kind of utopia.

Non no, you have to tell people how to have sex and what to smoke and drink and make them go to church, didn't you know that's what "free" means to conservatives? [/sarcasm]

BTW, love your avatar. KHAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!!!!

PrayingForWar · Oct 5, 2009

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

compmanio365 wrote:

Dunno.....sounds like pretty much what was intended on a free society. Simple rules: don't murder, don't steal.....other than that, as long as you aren't infringing on the rights of another, you should be left the hell alone. Sounds like my kind of utopia.

Click to expand...

Non no, you have to tell people how to have sex and what to smoke and drink and make them go to church, didn't you know that's what "free" means to conservatives? [/sarcasm]

BTW, love your avatar. KHAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!!!!

Not this conservative. I don't care if you snort cyanide after screwing a cat. Break into my house and you've surrendered your rights.

Real conservative principles have been skewed by religious zealots, and lumped into a narrow catagory by the fascists who make it a crime to defend yourself.

XD40coyote · Oct 6, 2009

imported post

Then you have licensed ones, where some states allow you to open carry, but just, you need a license. Some are anomalous, where the state legislature right now and the current state law are currently at odds, and so it's kind of hazy in terms of that. And then there are the non-permissive states, which say that you may not openly carry a firearm.

And so, you know, this gets back to the whole gun debate in terms of, you know, you're seeing people carrying AR-15s to public rallies. You know, are you going to see, you know, a guy with a rocket-launcher at a Chuck E. Cheese, you know, next Wednesday? Or, you know, with an Uzi at an IKEA. Or, you know, imagine a Glock 9 at a parent-teacher conference.

Mr. IZRAEL: Well, Ruben, help me out here. Even more than that, you know, of course, you know, it's an intimidation tactic, of course. But more than that, it also feeds into this fear that a lot of people, especially people of color, had early on that Obama, if elected, would not be safe in this country. You know, that…

MARTIN: Can I just - I just want to add - I'm sorry, forgive me, Jimi. I just want to add one thing, though, that I totally see your point. I want to hear what Ruben has to say. But there was one image that was widely played earlier this week of an African-American man named Chris -didn't give his last name to the reporter - with an AR-15 who was outside of President Obama's town hall meeting in Phoenix on Monday. And, you know, I'm not saying he's representative of anybody but himself, but I do think it's fair to hear what he has to say. So if you don't mind, I'd like to play a short clip.

CHRIS: A lot of people think we live in a democracy so that we can just - we can vote how the minority is going to live. And if we want health care, as long as we get enough people, we'll just take money from you, and we'll buy whatever we want, pay for whatever we want. And I just think that in America, people have the ability to fight back and to resist, and that's, you know, that's another reason why I'm here.

MARTIN: The only reason I'm mentioning the race piece is that, you know, you will note that some of the conservative blogs kept saying, well, what about this guy? What about this guy? So, okay, what about this guy, and you hear what he has to say. What this has to do with health care, I'm not really sure, and why people feel the need to openly display weapons, that's - I'm interested in what you all have to say about it.

Mr. IZRAEL: Well, Michel, you know, CNN reported that a lot of these meatball - I mean, gun owners - were sent to these town hall meetings by supporters of Ron Paul. So I don't even know how many of these gun owners are even legit, you know.

MARTIN: Well, if you're registered, they're legit, but - go ahead, Ruben.

Mr. NAVARRETTE: Jimi, this is Ruben. A couple things here. I'm glad that the African-American guy with the AR-15 had a say because this is progress. This is about, you know, like the move with feminism. You have the freedom to think, the freedom to choose different sides of a debate. You wouldn't have had this conversation 20, 30 years ago. So that's a good thing. The other thing…

MARTIN: Yeah, because of all the racist laws keeping guns out of the hands of black people. So I'll just point that out. (unintelligible)

Mr. NAVARRETTE: He's not a caricature. He's not sort of like this racist white guy that wants to kill Obama.

MARTIN: But that doesn't mean that the former doesn't exist because the latter also exists. I mean, I think those two realities can exist in the same world, is my point.

Mr. NAVARRETTE: It just means that complexity is important, nuance is important. Sometimes, the media misses the nuance. But beyond that, this whole discussion about carrying guns is a distraction. The reason the president's in incredible difficulty with health care is not because of gun-toting opponents at town hall meetings. It's because he cannot corral his own Democratic Party.

Bolded crap is of most interest.

Jeezuspeezuz, these idiots need to attend an actual OC lunch or dinner, just show up incognito, and observe and listen, and pretend to be normal regular people and ask nondescript questions. They don't need to carry, just find an event that is sceduled, and show up. Find out who "these people" are, ask what all "these people" do for a living, etc. No debating, arguing, or insulting behaviors.

But I suppose they all hide out in NYC and DC or something, and are too scared to venture into those gun owning, gun carrying, parts of the US.

Sonora Rebel · Oct 6, 2009

imported post

I missed this...: Mr. IZRAEL: Well, Michel, you know, CNN reported that a lot of these meatball - I mean, gun owners - were sent to these town hall meetings by supporters of Ron Paul. So I don't even know how many of these gun owners are even legit, you know.

MARTIN: Well, if you're registered, they're legit, but - go ahead, Ruben.

'meatball'? Cultural slur?

'Were sent'? Really? Prove it.

'if you're registered, they're legit' There is no gun registration in Arizona... only 7 states and the District require registration of some kind. These neocom morons have no idea whatinhell they're talking about.

Grapeshot · Oct 6, 2009

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

I missed this...: Mr. IZRAEL: Well, Michel, you know, CNN reported that a lot of these meatball - I mean, gun owners - were sent to these town hall meetings by supporters of Ron Paul. So I don't even know how many of these gun owners are even legit, you know.

MARTIN: Well, if you're registered, they're legit, but - go ahead, Ruben.

'meatball'? Cultural slur?

'Were sent'? Really? Prove it.

'if you're registered, they're legit' There is no gun registration in Arizona... only 7 states and the District require registration of some kind. These neocom morons have no idea whatinhell they're talking about.

They do have the major networks and the major cities blanketed - bought and paid for. This ignorance, these lies and dissemination of "facts" is what we are fighting to overcome. I think the tide is turning.

I welcome them to our world - may their words sour in their mouths.

Yata hey

Task Force 16 · Oct 6, 2009

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

SlowDog wrote:

I have been reading a series of books put out in the early 90's. The author's name is William W. Johnstone....makes for some interesting ready. The US has been nuked cuzz our <Liberal>leaders disabled our defense systems. <Sound Familiar?>
In the book there is a new Society where everyone works and everyone is armed. No crime hardly at all because there are few rules.When rebuilding they got rid of all the people who demanded a hand out instead of working for what they wanted. But to live in the New Society the rules must be adhered to. Don't like it leave. Violate them and well.....usually ends up in death sentence to be carried out NOW!
Breaks into a persons house and they shoot you...no trial...just a burial. I am not saying it is Utopia but as long as the persons follow the few laws on the books and provide for themselves....life is GRAND......just saying

Click to expand...

Its called anarchy and that is criminal itself. Even our forefathers embraced dissent and different opinions. Under the fictional imposed rules, one man's interpertation of the rules becomes another's violation. Which one is deemed to be right for dispatching the other?

Yata hey

The fictional scenario that is presented in Slowdogs description of the book is not one of anarchy. A society of anarchy would not have any rules or laws.

To be honest, I kind of like the described society. I've always favored the rule,"If you don't want to work, you don't eat".

Grapeshot · Oct 6, 2009

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

SlowDog wrote:

I have been reading a series of books put out in the early 90's. The author's name is William W. Johnstone....makes for some interesting ready. The US has been nuked cuzz our <Liberal>leaders disabled our defense systems. <Sound Familiar?>
In the book there is a new Society where everyone works and everyone is armed. No crime hardly at all because there are few rules.When rebuilding they got rid of all the people who demanded a hand out instead of working for what they wanted. But to live in the New Society the rules must be adhered to. Don't like it leave. Violate them and well.....usually ends up in death sentence to be carried out NOW!
Breaks into a persons house and they shoot you...no trial...just a burial. I am not saying it is Utopia but as long as the persons follow the few laws on the books and provide for themselves....life is GRAND......just saying

Click to expand...

Its called anarchy and that is criminal itself. Even our forefathers embraced dissent and different opinions. Under the fictional imposed rules, one man's interpertation of the rules becomes another's violation. Which one is deemed to be right for dispatching the other?

Yata hey

Click to expand...

The fictional scenario that is presented in Slowdogs description of the book is not one of anarchy. A society of anarchy would not have any rules or laws.

To be honest, I kind of like the described society. I've always favored the rule,"If you don't want to work, you don't eat".

Every thing in moderation. No work, no eat dictates frequently forget the young, the aged, the ill. Then there are problems with the theory of each according to his ability - some are more equal that others.

What I personally have a very great problem swallowing is the instant removal of any perceived offender for violation of rule/law. This smacks of the very form of government that we as a nation have repeatedly fought against. I will not support that judgment.

In matters of no choice, self-defense, I am prepared to do whatever I am forced to do. That is entirely a different matter.

Yata hey

Citizen · Oct 6, 2009

imported post

Oh, my. Did we just witness a case of Grapeshot having nothing to say?

Grapeshot · Oct 6, 2009

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Oh, my. Did we just witness a case of Grapeshot having nothing to say?

Not yet - a case of grapeshot would be a not unreasonable cure for some ailments.

My response was hidden 'tween previous posters lines. Fixed it so you won't have to read it all. My thanks.

Yata hey

RockyMtnScotsman · Oct 6, 2009

imported post

interesting - I've never been able to have a civil conversation with regular devotees to NPR..... they have a violent reaction to exposure to facts

Overtaxed · Oct 7, 2009

imported post

I've been to the Knob Creek Machinegun Shoot twice... was surrounded by people carrying, handling and firing weapons of all sorts.
Nothing but good things to say about how friendly, polite and yes, civil everyone I encountered was.

The Donkey · Oct 7, 2009

imported post

Machoduck wrote:

NPR: I don't think that you can expect to have civil conversation with anybody... that's got a gun.

Have the people of NPR ever tried to have a civil conversation with anyone carrying a gun?

This was not the view of "the people of NPR" but of one participant in a "barbershop" dialogue. THe last word in that dialogue was one of a voice pleading for toleranceof bearing firearms as a civil liberty, kind of like obnoxious speech.

Listening to the conversation as a whole, I findthis better coverage than what I saw of this issue in the rest the Main Stream Media, and I would include Fox as well as CNN and MSNBC in that description. Although opinions expressed were inaccurate and misinformed, persons alarmed by open carry would be slightly more tolerant of it after listening to this. That couldn't be a bad thing.

Sonora Rebel · Oct 7, 2009

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

This was not the view of "the people of NPR" but of one participant in a "barbershop" dialogue. THe last word in that dialogue was one of a voice pleading for toleranceof bearing firearms as a civil liberty, kind of like obnoxious speech.

Listening to the conversation as a whole, I findthis better coverage than what I saw of this issue in the rest the Main Stream Media, and I would include Fox as well as CNN and MSNBC in that description. Although opinions expressed were inaccurate and misinformed, persons alarmed by open carry would be slightly more tolerant of it after listening to this. That couldn't be a bad thing.

Bullsnort! This was just more anti-2A propaganda. '...toleranceof bearing firearms as a civil liberty'(?) 'Tolerance? Noooooooo! The Constitution is not something 'tolerated' except by the Neocoms who'd gleefully toss it in the dustbin of history as an annoyance. The 2A has 'been' recognition of a civil liberty... a RIGHT, since it was first adopted. "...persons alarmed by open carry would be slightly more tolerant of it after listening to this." Really?

Quote: "You know, are you going to see, you know, a guy with a rocket-launcher at a Chuck E. Cheese, you know, next Wednesday? Or, you know, with an Uzi at an IKEA. Or, you know, imagine a Glock 9 at a parent-teacher conference."

Quote: "Mr. IZRAEL: Well, Michel, you know, CNN reported that a lot of these meatball - I mean, gun owners - were sent to these town hall meetings by supporters of Ron Paul. So I don't even know how many of these gun owners are even legit, you know."

Yeah... this kind'a lyin', agitation propaganda, disinformation drivel is really gonna make anyone 'alarmed' by open carry 'more tolerant'. Donkey... quit bein' a pablum apologist for the neocoms 'n get real.

'rocket launcher': Destructive device

Uzi: Class III firearm

Glock 9: No such model... 9mm is ammo type. So what if someone is armed at a Parent-Teacher conference?

Sheeples Suzie Creemcheeze 'n Joe Sixpack are already dumbed down 'n senseless. What's the desired reaction to those examples? 'Tolerance? On whose planet Donkey? Agitation propaganda (agit-prop) may be news to you and unrecognizable... but anyone ever even slightly involved with 'intel' will pick up on it immediately.

With all the 'you know(s)' in that conversation... it's a wonder they can speak at all.

5 in the first 2 sentances 2 in the last 2 sentances. You know? :lol:

Grapeshot · Oct 7, 2009

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

Bullsnort! This was just more anti-2A propaganda........etc.

+1 Wow! Straight from the shoulder.

Yata hey

The Donkey · Oct 7, 2009

imported post

Mr. TORRE: Right. And this is really one of those classic, you know friction lines between common sense and civil liberties. But ultimately, I think you do need to allow these people to carry those guns. I mean, as much as I'd love to see them as a personal preference not be there, the bottom line is we sort of deem - as a society, obviously - to air on the side of civil liberties because we feel the slope is slipperier if we start to curtail them. I'm in favor of common sense, and that's the whole deal with free speech. That's the whole deal with this.

Sonora Rebel · Oct 7, 2009

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

Mr. TORRE: Right. And this is really one of those classic, you know friction lines between common sense and civil liberties. But ultimately, I think you do need to allow these people to carry those guns. I mean, as much as I'd love to see them as a personal preference not be there, the bottom line is we sort of deem - as a society, obviously - to air on the side of civil liberties because we feel the slope is slipperier if we start to curtail them. I'm in favor of common sense, and that's the whole deal with free speech. That's the whole deal with this.

Translation: You know, we have to throw 'them' a bone, even tho we know better, you know, cause common sense tells us, you know, that the right to bear arms doesn't Really mean, you know, that ordinary people actually might carry them around, you know?

" I think you do need to allow these people to carry those guns." Allow? Allow a pre-existing right to be freely exercised? 'Allow' a right enumerated in the US Constitution 'n echoed in nearly all state constitutions? Allow? Who the hell do these clowns think they are? Allow? "to air on the side of civil liberties because we feel the slope is slipperier if we start to curtail them." Was that to 'air' or 'err'? "Start to curtail them"? The right to bear arms is already 'curtailed'. What part of "Shall not be infringed" escapes their glance? "I'm in favor of common sense, and that's the whole deal with free speech. That's the whole deal with this." Unfortunately...this speech eludes common sense. Common sense would dictate that the people have the right to bear the means of self defense. Period. Common sense would dictate that the unrealistic and irrational sensitivities and fears of the few do not trump the rights of the many to defend themselves by force of arms.

Wanna try that again Donkey... or continue being a Neocom tool?

ixtow · Oct 7, 2009

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

zack991 wrote:

Guns make for a civil society, without them there is really no fear put into people to behave themselves. If they allowed people to shoot robbers, rapist, child molesters on site, after they are found guilty. They would be amazed how much crime will drop.

Click to expand...

The latter would have been better unsaid. I do not advocate use of deadly force but for a narrow, specific set of circumstances.

Click to expand...

+1,Grapeshot.

Zack,

Please understand that your position undermines liberty. Hidden in the ideaabove is the supposition that peopleonly behave themselves because they feardisastrous consequences.The underlying premise being that all men are beasts that need restraint. If all men are bad, why give them liberty?

Liberty must be premised on the idea that men are basically good and will use their freedom for good. If men were bad, there would be no point in giving them liberty.

But isn't that why we have Police? And why we carry in the first place?

There ARE people who only behave because there will be consequences if they do not.

Some of them have radio shows paid for by the government who tells them to talk such FUD as this thread was started for......

What they mean to say is that they are intimidated by someone who can stand right in their face and not HAVE to have a conversation at all to prove everything they say is a lie.

I guess all they can do is call the civilized example somehow uncivilized even as it is right in their face... Is anybody still falling for this crap anymore? It isn't even thinly veiled bullshit anymore. It's just plain obvious bullshit.

Citizen · Oct 7, 2009

imported post

ixtow wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

zack991 wrote:

Guns make for a civil society, without them there is really no fear put into people to behave themselves. If they allowed people to shoot robbers, rapist, child molesters on site, after they are found guilty. They would be amazed how much crime will drop.

Click to expand...

The latter would have been better unsaid. I do not advocate use of deadly force but for a narrow, specific set of circumstances.

Click to expand...

+1,Grapeshot.

Zack,

Please understand that your position undermines liberty. Hidden in the ideaabove is the supposition that peopleonly behave themselves because they feardisastrous consequences.The underlying premise being that all men are beasts that need restraint. If all men are bad, why give them liberty?

Liberty must be premised on the idea that men are basically good and will use their freedom for good. If men were bad, there would be no point in giving them liberty.

Click to expand...

But isn't that why we have Police? And why we carry in the first place?

There ARE people who only behave because there will be consequences if they do not.

You are right, Ixtow. The distinctionbeing that Zack and I are discussing generalities.

NPR: I don't think that you can expect to have civil conversation with anybody... that's got a gun

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Campaign Veteran

Legendary Warrior

Founder's Club Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

New member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member