The arrogance. She's certainly free to do whatever she wants on her own property, but to expect her personal views to be followed on someone else's property is nothing short of fascist.I laughed at the woman who said, "I don't allow guns in my home, so I don't want them here"
I guess she will never be the victim of a home invasion or a rape, since that would "not be allowed" either.
I did last week and got a nice response thanking me for my opinion.People should send thank you emails to starbucks for not forcefully disarming us, that we will continue to spend our hard earned money on their products. It does not sound like a big deal, but we send others company's nasty emails for stopping us from open-carrying in their stores. So it would make sense for us to send for them not doing it to us.
I agree....but then, again, I don't like people speaking their mind, so everybody shut the....up. I also don't like reporters that write or say things that I don't agree with...so they should quit their jobs. I also don't like people that refuse to incriminate themselves so they should all go to prison. I could go on but the list is endless.What amazes me is the mentality of an individual that iscompelled to infringe on other people's rights/freedoms all because it's something they personally disagree or are not comfortable with. Kind of like saying....."I don't like guns, thereforenobody should have them." Absurd!
The arrogance. She's certainly free to do whatever she wants on her own property, but to expect her personal views to be followed on someone else's property is nothing short of fascist.
Not trying to pick a fight, but Merriam-Webster's definition of fascist is:Diesel-n-Lead wrote:The arrogance. She's certainly free to do whatever she wants on her own property, but to expect her personal views to be followed on someone else's property is nothing short of fascist.
No, it's totalitarian...
Fascist would be if she owned a company that's business was destroying guns, and she influenced public policy to REQUIRE that all guns be rounded up and destroyed by her company.
Fascism is the merger of corporate and government powers.
Totalitarianism is when a government, usually under the rule of a single person, does not recognize any limits on it's own power, and attempts to regulate all aspects of life, public and private.
She is a totalitarian, not a fascist.
The last 5 US administrations have been fascist, because they are establishing, through their "revolving door" assignments of corporate bigwhigs to cabinet-level positions where they use their corporate-influenced attitudes to establish public policy and regulations.
The government now runs or has substantial control of a large portion of the automotive industry in the US, the financial industry, and perhaps in the near future, the oil industry. THAT is fascism...
Dreamer wrote:
Diesel-n-Lead wrote:The arrogance. She's certainly free to do whatever she wants on her own property, but to expect her personal views to be followed on someone else's property is nothing short of fascist.
No, it's totalitarian...
Fascist would be if she owned a company that's business was destroying guns, and she influenced public policy to REQUIRE that all guns be rounded up and destroyed by her company.
Fascism is the merger of corporate and government powers.
Totalitarianism is when a government, usually under the rule of a single person, does not recognize any limits on it's own power, and attempts to regulate all aspects of life, public and private.
She is a totalitarian, not a fascist.
The last 5 US administrations have been fascist, because they are establishing, through their "revolving door" assignments of corporate bigwhigs to cabinet-level positions where they use their corporate-influenced attitudes to establish public policy and regulations.
The government now runs or has substantial control of a large portion of the automotive industry in the US, the financial industry, and perhaps in the near future, the oil industry. THAT is fascism...
Not trying to pick a fight, but Merriam-Webster's definition of fascist is:
"1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control."
Call it fascist, totalitarian, or even "progressive" if you like. Whatever you want to call it the behavior of the California legislature contradicts the spirit of liberty our founding fathers sought to guarantee us and the text of the constitution, which they carefully worded to that end.
I hold no hope that Schwarzenegger will veto the steaming pile of crap the legislature just passed. My only hope is that the supreme court's decision in the McDonald case will be favorable and nullify AB1934.
I couldn't agree more.
+1Dreamer wrote:Not trying to pick a fight, but Merriam-Webster's definition of fascist is:Diesel-n-Lead wrote:The arrogance. She's certainly free to do whatever she wants on her own property, but to expect her personal views to be followed on someone else's property is nothing short of fascist.
No, it's totalitarian...
Fascist would be if she owned a company that's business was destroying guns, and she influenced public policy to REQUIRE that all guns be rounded up and destroyed by her company.
Fascism is the merger of corporate and government powers.
Totalitarianism is when a government, usually under the rule of a single person, does not recognize any limits on it's own power, and attempts to regulate all aspects of life, public and private.
She is a totalitarian, not a fascist.
The last 5 US administrations have been fascist, because they are establishing, through their "revolving door" assignments of corporate bigwhigs to cabinet-level positions where they use their corporate-influenced attitudes to establish public policy and regulations.
The government now runs or has substantial control of a large portion of the automotive industry in the US, the financial industry, and perhaps in the near future, the oil industry. THAT is fascism...
"1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control."
Call it fascist, totalitarian, or even "progressive" if you like. Whatever you want to call it the behavior of the California legislature contradicts the spirit of liberty our founding fathers sought to guarantee us and the text of the constitution, which they carefully worded to that end.
I hold no hope that Schwarzenegger will veto the steaming pile of crap the legislature just passed. My only hope is that the supreme court's decision in the McDonald case will be favorable and nullify AB1934.