Why Does Anyone Think The GOP Supports The 2nd Amendment?

[45nut]

hey alvagoldbook,

Can you remember Waco and who was President then and what they did to all those innocent children as well as the thought of watching our Government MURDER it's own citizens? Where was due process?

Why did our Government use tanks to spray flammable CS tear gas into an enclosed space lighted by candles and lanterns? Was it to destroy evidence that would have showed that they fired on the compound from a helicopter? Isn't it illegal for US Military to fire on US citizens?

Bush has protected us from numerous follow up attacks, when your President Clinton decided it was okay to murder a select number of US citizens.

So, it is incumbent for you to explain why Clinton gets a pass for murdering our fellow citizens, while Bush gets blamed for everything from CAUSING Katrina to not getting all the poor folk out of the way of the flood (Mayor Nagin's fault), to gun grabbing (and looting and stealing) local policemen, to not getting enough aide to all those affected, when he in fact signed the disaster relief paperwork before the freaking hurricane even hit the coast!!

Give me a break. If you have one ounce of cognitive reasoning left.... oh but you're a liberal. Sorry.

[jinn]

Originally Posted by 45nut

hey alvagoldbook,
Isn't it illegal for US Military to fire on US citizens?

Yes, it is, and FBI & BATF both knew it. Seems an FBI agent who quit in disgust after the event revealed that the agencies sought chopper pilots from civilian source (sheriff dep't; they refused), so wound up recruiting National Guard pilots to do the dirty work.

I always believed this story, but cannot source it for proof. After what the bastards got away with, what difference does it make now? Americans have SHORT memories.

After all, Lon Horiuchi got off scott-free, after being charged with manslaughter, and his boss, Larry Potts got PROMOTED!! (Ruby Ridge).

[Prizefighter]

Originally Posted by carver

Do not underestimate these people. Those in the past that did usually wound up being ruled be them. The Russians probably thought about the Muslim people simular to the way you do, look what happed to them when they went into Afganistan! Let History teach us. Let our belief's lead us, and most of all let America Bless God!

I agree that they should not be underestimated, but the glamorous light you paint them in is, well, misinformed. The various monumental accomplishments throughout history can hardly be attributed to islam alone. And I don't care how old any book is, if they are using/twisting its message to butcher in the name of their religion, they are hardly a noble people.

There have been plenty of great Christians. But the fact that I too am a Christian does not make me great.

Incidentally, when the Russians went to Afganistan they found people trained and armed (to an extent) by the United States.

[alvagoldbook]

Well it appears that I've caused a bit of an uproar here. To those I severely ticked off, my apologies. I don't take posts on a forum too seriously, I hope no one else does either. It's just conversation folks. Relax.

I'd also like to make something clear. I am not a member of the Democratic Party. I don't work for them, and they certainly don't work for me. If I had to use a single word to describe them it would be "traitors".

I'd also like to mention that I did not vote for Bill Clinton. The first time I ever voted was in 1996 (when I turned 18). I ended up voting for Ross Perot. Why? Because I hated Bill Clinton.

I also don't have very many good things to say about Janet Reno, who if I recall, was in charge of what went down at Waco. As far as I'm concerned, what happened at Waco was a crime against the American People perpetrated by the U.S. Government. Of course, Janet Reno is the same person who said that it was "worth it" for the United States to put such a harsh embargo against Iraq in the 1990's that 600,000 children died. As far as I'm concerned Bill Clinton should have been impeached and prosecuted for war crimes.

That being said, yes I'm aware of how nuts Muslim fundamentalists are. I'm probably more aware of it than most. Can anyone here say that they've read any Sayed Kotb? Kotb was very much the forefather of modern Islamic fundamentalist ideology. Kotb was probably the biggest single influence on Aymen Al Zarwarhi, who taught Osama bin Laden everything he knows about Islamic terrorism.

The Egyptian born Kotb wrote in the mid 1950s while living in Colorado that America was living in a state of "moral bankruptcy". He came to this conclusion after seeing a high school dance, and noticing that Americans liked to have nice looking lawns. If 1950s schoolgirls dancing and using fertilizer for what it was designed for is your definition of "moral bankruptcy", then you're a freaking nutcase. Kotb, of course was nuttier than a Snickers, and 30 years later played a part in the assassination of Sadat. After that, he got even more nutty (well into Baby Ruth territory) ...but that's a longer story.

In any case, I'm well aware that Muslim fundies are crazy. Religious fundamentalists are always crazy. They always have been and always will be. But there's a very close parallel between the poverty of a nation and how religious they are. There's a reason why you don't see wealthy white people from France blowing themselves up for anything, much less for invisible cloud beings. They have better things to do.

Does a dirt poor Iraqi have anything better to do than just blow himself up in the vain hope that he'll have his way with 72 virgins? Any chance that he can go on a date and go to the movies with his hunny? Or go for a walk in a park or along the beach? Or go see a play performed in a theater? Or go see a rock band at a concert hall? Or hell, even have some friends over for burgers and beer?

Miserable people do miserable things. Their misery makes them crazy. It doesn't matter how you define that insanity as Islamic or psychotic. They're still miserable crazy people. You can't do anything to solve someone's insanity so long as they continue to be miserable.

So it seems to me that we have two options. 1) we could be complete monsters and kill everyone in the middle east who's miserable. That would be lovely. We could look back on what we've done the same way the Russians look back at Stalin or the Germans look back at Hitler. or 2) we could try to find a way to end misery in the Middle East.

All I'm saying is a few Disney Worlds or 6 Flags in the Middle East would do a better job fighting terrorism than dropping bombs on people who already have next to nothing and making them even more miserable.

[Prizefighter]

And as for the people in the UK, or already within U.S. borders who are free of that miserable place and still feel the same way?

What's more, if Mecca-Disney were ever attempted, the U.S. would be decried for "trying to force its culture onto others." I understand you were probably exaggerating a bit to make a point - and you do have a point. But it would take a lot less than a Disney resort to start hearing those cries.

The U.S. is trying to override native culture when it helps develop an area, and it is being selfish and irresponsible if it doesn't pump money and resources into a country that "needs" it.

What you are describing is what I see going on in Iraq right now to some extent. They're attempting to build a better Iraq, as much as that may sound like tired rhetoric. The rest of the powers in the Middle East don't want a better Iraq, I imagine for reasons much like you describe. After all, how did Hitler rise to such power in the beginning? By playing on the misery of the German people at the time.

But as much progress has been made in Iraq, it can all disappear very easily. And the country wouldn't have got this far without requisite military action to combat those that are thriving on a miserable, brainwashed people.

As far as this thread goes, I'll say I'm refreshed to participate in a political discussion with opposing sides that isn't pure hostility and name-calling. I usually tell myself to avoid talking politics whatsoever since it usually devolves into boorish nonsense. So far this thread seems like a shining intellectual display compared even to what you find on CNN, MSNBC, etc. A 1 in a million occurence.

[SolidVFR]

Originally Posted by alvagoldbook

Miserable people do miserable things. Their misery makes them crazy. It doesn't matter how you define that insanity as Islamic or psychotic. They're still miserable crazy people. You can't do anything to solve someone's insanity so long as they continue to be miserable.

So it seems to me that we have two options. 1) we could be complete monsters and kill everyone in the middle east who's miserable. That would be lovely. We could look back on what we've done the same way the Russians look back at Stalin or the Germans look back at Hitler. or 2) we could try to find a way to end misery in the Middle East.

All I'm saying is a few Disney Worlds or 6 Flags in the Middle East would do a better job fighting terrorism than dropping bombs on people who already have next to nothing and making them even more miserable.

Hey, I've got a better idea. How 'bout we make it simple: for every American person they kill, we allocate $100,000 for them. Not only will we be putting them out of their misery, but we will give them incentive, something to aspire towards! Oh, and how about $1 million for every building they blow up?

You are completely wrong about saying that they have "next to nothing". They won the war. It wasn't a war of the physical(lives, possessions). It was a psychological war. We LET them win because of people like you who think that murdering innocent people just because they're different than you is OK. This is 100% AGAINST the fundamentals of the USA, and we've got to show it. These are disgusting people, more so than you. It is our fault that they killed 3,000 innocent people???? You're fault, maybe, because you were probably rallying, showing your individuality and political activeness, against any and every attempt to take any serious action against this vicious scum.

You claim to be pro-gun ownership. I doubt this very much because of the way you think(which is very evident here). Take, for instance, what you said about miserable people doing miserable things. This sounds a lot like the anti-gun propaganda I've heard spewed from many self-proclaimed intelligent liberals. You don't seems to understand, or acknowledge, that there are good people and there are bad people. If you're not a good person, your a bad person. Good and evil, it is as simple as that. radical islamists are not good people. They don't kill people because they live in caves. They kill people because they are evil. As I said, this reminded me of a very effective peice of anti-gun propoganda(that is, for liberals who listen to everything they are told, so long as it doesn't make sense). Anti-gun people try to make it seem like if you give a person a gun, he will kill you. They(you) think that an object or a house will do the trick and make an evil person good, or vice versa. Change, as you are so fond of, isn't as easy as spending taxpayer's hard earned money on people who tried to kill them buying them ammeneties that many Americans don't evn have. Spending that money(and probably less) on munitions to obliterate evil in a way that has been proven over time is actually a decent idea.

I also think that your comparisons to stalin and hitler are wrong. There is a difference between a dictator killing its citizens and a country SERVING its citizens by destroying its enemies.


PROPOGANDA AND B.S. DOESN'T WORK ON THE THINKING, RESPECTABLE PEOPLE WHO YOU'LL FIND AROUND HERE. I POLITELY INVITE YOU TO LEAVE AND COME BACK ONLY WHEN YOU BECOME A TRUE AMERICAN AND A TRULY GOOD PERSON. Good day.

[45nut]

Yo alva,

Muslims don't want to kill infidels (read us and the US - The Great Satan) because they are so poor and destitute and they have nothing to live for. Islam is a religion of coercion plain and simple. They want to control the world and force everyone to convert (or die) to Islam. Their intended goal

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pa...s-of-Islam.htm

http://www.masada2000.org/islam.html

We have been at war with Islam since the days of the Ottomans on the Barbary Coast. Do you remember the Marine Corps Anthem? From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli. The Marine Corps first amphibious assault was against Muslims who would not stop attacking our trade ships. First we tried diplomacy and that didn't work. Second we sent the Marines around behind Derna (in Tripoli) and then the Navy sat out in the Harbor and said "Surprise, we're here"

[satellite66]

How does one explain Bin Laden who is at least a multimillionaire and his terrorist activities? How come they are not blowing up the Saudis or other filthy rich muslims?

[alvagoldbook]

Satellite, bin Laden is crazy. That’s how you explain him. He wouldn’t have any followers if all his followers weren’t dirt poor. Bin Laden did try to attack some filthy rich Muslims, namely Saddam Hussein back in the 1990s. Bin Laden tried to get a little Islamic army together in Saudi Arabia and invade Iraq, seeking to take out Saddam Hussein for his “moderate” stance on Iraqi secularism. The Saudis didn’t want a diplomatic travesty on their hands, and so the Saudis banished bin Laden to Sudan.

45nut, all religion is a form of mental coercion. Muslims are just louder than most. Yes, we’ve been fighting Muslims since the days of George Washington (check out the Treaty of Tripoli), and they haven’t overtaken us yet, and that’s with us ignoring them for most of 200 years. When was the last time Muslims conquered anything? When the Moors invaded Spain?

SolidVFR, you’re wrong. We won the war, at least in Iraq. We just lost the occupation. I have nothing to do with it. Poor military planning has everything to do with it. Even Dick Cheney agrees with me on this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I

I am entirely in favor of the 2nd amendment, and ALL the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. That should be pretty clear from reading my posts.

You say Muslims are killing people not because they live in caves, but because they are evil people. That’s a rather absolutist way of looking at things, don’t you think? No gray area allowed? Just good people and evil people? Do you think that Muslims consider themselves to be evil? Do you consider yourself to be good? What makes you good? Can good people become evil and vice versa?

Maybe the reality is that anyone can do wonderful things and anyone can do monstrous things depending on the circumstances. Remember that story years ago about those folks who crashed their plane up in the mountains somewhere and resorted to cannibalism to survive? Were those people evil? If not, are good people cannibals? See where I’m going with this? Muslims do evil things because they live in lousy circumstances. Change the circumstances and you get a different reaction.

Sure, we could give them 100 grand for every American that they kill. Or something like that. It’s not like THE MARSHALL PLAN ever worked, did it?

Prize, yes, I wasn’t being 100% literal with putting a Disney World in the Middle East. I was just saying that amusement parks could do more to fight terrorism than bombs.

[Prizefighter]

I, at least, was not ever talking about ALL muslims. Islam is not the enemy, radical islam is. I don't want to see anyone hurt just because he's muslim. But if he's the latter variety, then he either needs to be put on the ground until he gives up, or in the ground.

We agree that Bin Laden is one crazy guy. Are you suggesting that he is the only one?

Let them eat Ben & Jerry's, wear designer clothes, and live in modular homes. I don't mind a bit for them to have the best of everything. Hire yourself a U-Haul truck, fill it with Aquafina and Milky Way bars, and see how long you can go without coming across an IED.

The Peace Corps cannot fix the problem without the Marine Corps.

[satellite66]

Wow if that is not a clueless answer. How do you explain why the poor hindus or poor buddasts are not out killing everyone off? You act like there are not poor people of every religion.
I'm done with this thread and this troll.

[graehaven]

Originally Posted by alvagoldbook

Maybe the reality is that anyone can do wonderful things and anyone can do monstrous things depending on the circumstances. Remember that story years ago about those folks who crashed their plane up in the mountains somewhere and resorted to cannibalism to survive? Were those people evil? If not, are good people cannibals? See where I’m going with this? Muslims do evil things because they live in lousy circumstances. Change the circumstances and you get a different reaction.

That's very "moral relativist" of you. There are plenty of people here in the US that are currently on the public dole, and are very bad people, involved in very bad things. Yet, they have their housing paid for by us, their food stamps, and other public welfare, yet they choose to be involved in drugs, prostitution, murder and mayhem. They've been given everything from day one (some of them), and choose to do wrong. It's not that they don't know any better, that's BS, they CHOOSE to do wrong. There are also plenty of people here who have gone through lousy circumstances and have not perpetrated anything on anyone. They pull through it, come hell or high water. They choose right over wrong.

The people that hate us, are raised in a religious culture of hate, period.

People who are raised in a culture or family background of moral relativism, grow up either denying the existence of evil, or just don't recognize the difference between good and bad, right and wrong. People like this are confused, and say things like "all religion is a form of mental coercion." They utter platitudes without substance, and sweeping generalizations without another thought, as they move on to the next talking point given to them by their god, the media. When confronted with facts, they jump around from point to point like a cricket in a fire pit.

You will be the first to conform when the SHTF. You will be the one to turn on your neighbor. And you will realize, all too late, that your position was foolish. You cannot choose to play both sides. It won't be about relativistic rhetoric then. It will be decision time. The path you are on now, grasshopper, is the wrong one.

[CampingJosh]

Originally Posted by alvagoldbook

45nut, all religion is a form of mental coercion.

I'm sorry... what?! How did you come to this conclusion?

[alvagoldbook]

CampingJosh, I mean you no offense, and I realize you’re a man of faith, but to my way of thinking religion is quite possibly the most destructive thing mankind has ever invented. A casual look at either Islam or Christianity (or rather the followers of these faiths) should bear that out. From the crusades to the inquisition to the holocaust to 9-11. It’s all insanity as far as I’m concerned. I certainly don’t think that men of faith can’t be good people. They frequently are, and I even find the words of the Gospel quite inspiring. But I am an atheist for a good reason.

Satellite, Hindus have been at war with Muslims for generations. Buddhists, I must admit are fairly tolerable, but the Buddhist faith is more of a philosophy of life than a religion as the western world understands the term. There are dozens of cultural and religious reasons why those in the Middle East are violent and angry. A lot of it has to do with the nature of their faith, environment, and their economy. I can only imagine the desert makes people crazier then would normally happen in cooler, more life sustaining environments. There’s a reason why Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all came from the same place. I can only assume that the Middle East makes people crazy.

Prize, I consider all people of faith to be to some degree crazy. I realize that is a controversial statement, but I suppose I have a habit of it. I would agree with you that radical Islam is what we should be primarily concerned about, and I’ve known several Muslims who seemed like normal rational people. I would note however that I’ve encountered far more fundamentalist Christians in my travels, and I find them equally as scary and dangerous. I know that Tim McVeigh was no Muslim.

I would agree with you that economic development in Iraq is at the very least problematic with a war going on all around. But those who plant those IEDs would not be there if they did not hope to kill some Americans. I further doubt that the Iraqis would put up with them if we weren’t there. Vietnam is a good example of this. Vietnam was a disaster area while there was still a war going on. 35 years later Vietnam has a growing economy. There can’t be any real progress without peace.

Grae, I don’t consider this to be moral relativist, just moral. Yes, there are people who do destructive things everyday. That also happens to be all they know. This has been well documented. There is a mental disorder known as anti-social personality disorder. In days past it was more frequently called psychopathy or sociopathy. It has been well established that psychopaths grow up in acute poverty. Not to get overly complicated into the psyche side of this, but those who are ASPD have an inability to feel empathy or guilt. Without that guide, stealing a neighbor’s car isn’t something that’s viewed as immoral, but as a funny prank to the sociopath. THERE IS NO CHOICE TO DO WRONG BECAUSE IT IS NOT CONSIDERED TO BE WRONG. Yes, there are plenty of people who have gone through rough times and pull through it. However it is an incorrect assumption to think that two people who live in equal poverty have the same resources. Simply having been raised in a loving and caring environment gives you an advantage that others don’t have.

There is no difficulty for atheists to differentiate between what is moral and what is immoral. I would argue that they have an easier time making the distinction, since their minds aren’t filled with ludicrous stories of talking snakes, burning bushes, and virgin births confusing the issue.

I’m not sure what you’re talking about when the “SHTF”. I’ve never been one to conform or rat others out. As an anarcho-syndicalist/libertarian socialist, I’ve always had a huge distain for authority, as well as the corporate media. What was it that Ed Howdershelt said? “There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballet, jury, ammo. Use in that order.” I couldn’t agree more.

[Prizefighter]

Originally Posted by alvagoldbook

But those who plant those IEDs would not be there if they did not hope to kill some Americans. I further doubt that the Iraqis would put up with them if we weren’t there.

I have to believe that this particular statement was simply an error. (Select) Middle Eastern people try to kill Americans, Israelites, other "tribes," Indians... I remember reading a news report maybe a year ago about a native shopkeeper whose store was bombed because he had Playstation consoles. It's been that way for way longer than the Iraq war has been going on. It couldn't be any worse if bombing people was a verbatim command in the Qur'an itself.

You call others crazy for having religion, and I call you crazy for at least half the categories you place yourself under. At any rate, "discussing" religion is the line I refuse to cross. While debates about politics rarely end well, debates about religion never end well.

[CampingJosh]

Originally Posted by alvagoldbook

CampingJosh, I mean you no offense, and I realize you’re a man of faith, but to my way of thinking religion is quite possibly the most destructive thing mankind has ever invented... I am an atheist for a good reason.

Certainly no offense was taken.
You know, Alva, if I had the preconcieved notion that religion was invented by men, I would be an atheist, too. But why do you think religion was invented by men?
We have entirely different worldviews here. From your starting point of "there is no God," only no religion makes sense. But I'm curious about how you got to that starting point.
Maybe this part of the conversation should continue through PMs (so that I don't hijack the thread).

Originally Posted by alvagoldbook

There is no difficulty for atheists to differentiate between what is moral and what is immoral. I would argue that they have an easier time making the distinction, since their minds aren’t filled with ludicrous stories of talking snakes, burning bushes, and virgin births confusing the issue.

So what, in the atheist's mind, makes one thing moral and another immoral? People of religion have a set standard to use (the higher being defines both reality and morality). What does an atheist have that doesn't change with the wind?

[alvagoldbook]

camping josh, I have no problem discussing religion, but I suspect everyone else might. feel free to private message me to continue the discussion.

[45nut]

Ah.... an atheist and a liberal. Well, isn't that special. It really makes perfect sense. (Read whatever bigoted redneck jokes you know right here) What a useless load of drivel.

We can all talk until we turn blue in the face and alva here will still be trying to protect the killers who want our blood and want it now. Isn't this the same sh!t we hear from the liberals about horrible murderers, child rapist, cannibals etc., who they say are just poor miserable kids raised in dark basements and it's really not their fault. (which Lib-Dem talking point is that, #5 or 6?)


Since one cannot determine the radical muslim from the garden variety muslim until they strap on a back pack full of dynamite, and since they, the muslims have vowed to destroy us and everything we stand for and hold dear, all muslims should be sent back to their country of origin so they can be poor and destitute and miserable in their own country

If radical male muslims between 18 and and 50 are the ones attacking us, then get them all the hell out of here and don't let them back in. Ship all muslims as well as anyone from a muslim country back and don't let them back in. Period.

How's that for a kinder and gentler redneck. They can even take all their women and children with them.

[armedandsafe]

Shakey ground, folks. I'll let political discourse go on, so long as folks are civil and courteous. However, experience tells me that a thread that veers into personal religous beliefs, it gets emotional quickly. I will close this thread if it continues in this vein.

Don't make me stop this bus and come back there.

Pops

[SolidVFR]

Originally Posted by armedandsafe

Don't make me stop this bus and come back there.

Pops

Based on the nature of the arguement, your going to have to. Logical reasoning vs emotionally impulsive/ignorant "opinions". Of course they'll be different, and will be argued over until the logical party becomes illogical, or the ignorant party becomes enlightened.

[Shooter45]

Solid, that's just the nature of the beast but it WILL be carried out without any flaming or name calling. Members can agree to disagree if necessary to remain a part of TFF.

[RDak]

The problem with your original post Alva is, with just a cursory review of the data available, even on the internet, you would have answered your question in about 5 minutes.

I'm new here so I'll temper my answer by just saying that, for over forty years that I've been closely following this issue, the Democratic leadership has consistently been for the prohibition of private firearms ownership.

Bill Clinton's position, for example, was the 2nd Amendment affords only a collective right, it does not afford an individual right. His Justice Department listed this as their official opinion of the 2nd Amendment.

A classic recent example is revealed by DC's Democratic leadership thumbing their nose at the holding in Heller, supra.

The facts clearly show that, had it not been for Republicans, we, as individuals would probably not be allowed to own firearms. Afterall, that was the stated mission of the Democratic leadership for over 40 years now. Senator Feinstein said it all when she wanted all Americans to turn in their rifles if she had her way.

That's how the Democratic leadership has been all of my adult life and I'm getting old!!

[graehaven]

Originally Posted by SolidVFR

Based on the nature of the arguement, your going to have to. Logical reasoning vs emotionally impulsive/ignorant "opinions". Of course they'll be different, and will be argued over until the logical party becomes illogical, or the ignorant party becomes enlightened.

That's EXACTLY the point I made earlier in this thread. The liberal point of view, specifically in this thread, has been shown to be (repeatedly) the asinine point of view, and yet, it's been allowed to continue. That's ridiculous.

Why are those that are shown to be factually wrong allowed to express their opinion over and over, allowed to continue spouting inciting remarks? Sweeping generalizations have been made, then, when other members here respond (with some emotional disdain - as expected) then THEY are the ones wrong?! Are you kidding?

[whirley]

The worst part of todays political situation is that it only takes an interpretation by some judge, or an executive decision from the White House, and any or all of our rights can go down the tube. The Socialist left has declared they own the Democrat party, and many of them believe our laws should be superceded by European or U.N. decisions. One Supreme Court Judge has expressed that opinion. Roosevelt put thousands of American citizens in Concentration Camps by executive order, and nobody said a word! He was a Socialist but is still held in high esteem by the left. No one seems to understand that history repeats itself!

[SaddleSarge]

...and here comes Gustav now. Let's see if they learned anything from Katrina.

I don't think the people will allow the confiscation that they did during Katrina.

Hey, Bush is still in office. Is this another Bush caused hurricane?