Hypocrisy at its best, GUNS and Liberals

[Sneakerz 0]

Here We go again. A topic revisted that I have touched on before and seems to be in the threads as of recent times. Gun control. For those of you that read my previous post on this topic, you obviously know my position on it, the name of it is "For the Same Reason I Carry a Reserve" (sorry I dont know how to turn that into a short cut but a search of that title brings it up , and that I havent been on here in a while so if what I write in this thread has already been brought up, I apologize.)

Anyway, I am not writing this time to speak about why I should be allowed to carry a pistol or why those people who think I shouldn't be allowed to, should mind their own business. This is about something that has been nagging at me for a month or two now. Just a little more hypocrisy I have noticed.

The recent story about George Bush allowing wire taps has the liberal's panties all in a twist (which before you anti-bush people start screaming, please remember this was allowed quite a few presidents ago, yes even your "Beloved Clinton" allowed the EXACT same type of tapping) The liberals and people int the media (radio talk shows, news paper editorials, etc.) say "well, if you are willing to give up the right to privacy, whats next? What are you willing to give up next?" I find it very amusing that they then turn around and try to take away our gun rights. So I ask them and those of you who think guns should be taken away, Whats next? What else will YOU want us to give up?

And those of you that think the NSA is just wiretapping everyone and listening to casual conversations, the condition of paranoia comes to mind. Don't associate with terrorists, and you wont have to worry about your"privacy" being infringed upon.

This mentality that we should not take action to protect ourselves from terrorists and the countries that support them blows my mind. Don't forget that the terrorists that attacked up on 9/11 were able to take advantage of many of these so called privacy protection laws to be able to hide in this country undetected until they attacked.

Don't complain about one side trying to take your rights away (even though they arent, the liberal media and politics are scaring you into thinking that) when you yourself are doing the same thing.

Jump Safe, BLUE SKIES

---------------
"Once you find a job that you like, you never have to work another day in your life"

[Tink1717 2]

Quote

yes even your "Beloved Clinton" allowed the EXACT same type of tapping

The difference: Clinton GOT A WARRANT, Bush didn't. That's why when Bush did it, it's a crime. Deal with it.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[TrophyHusband 0]

i always thought that liberals were hypocrites because they don't believe that the first amendment applies to christians.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

yes even your "Beloved Clinton" allowed the EXACT same type of tapping

The difference: Clinton GOT A WARRANT, Bush didn't. That's why when Bush did it, it's a crime. Deal with it.

No, he didn't. Not in all cases. He even had the house of US citizen searched without a warrent. That guy was eventually sent to prison for spying.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Nightingale 0]

Well, personally, I'd like to keep my privacy AND my gun.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Well, personally, I'd like to keep my privacy AND my gun.

That sounds good. Maybe that is why I am not a democrat or a republican.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Nightingale 0]

Same here.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

The liberals and people int the media (radio talk shows, news paper editorials, etc.) say "well, if you are willing to give up the right to privacy, whats next? What are you willing to give up next?" I find it very amusing that they then turn around and try to take away our gun rights.

Although we know they are lying, they claim that they have no interest in taking away our gun rights. They instead try to characterize their actions and their legislative attempts as "gun safety," and they pretend that as long as we are left with single-shot .22s (which they'd ban later on) we have not been denied our rights.

These are zealots, friend. They are not able to see their own lies and hypocrisy. Nor would they want to.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

i always thought that liberals were hypocrites because they don't believe that the first amendment applies to christians.

They also think that the Second Amendment applies only to celebrities.


-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[ViperPilot 0]

Anyone know what percentage of completely normal, 100% law-abiding (except for speeding and shit like that), good old Americans get their privacy completely stricken away as the bad government machine looks through all their stuff? I'd really like to know that one.

[freeryde13 0]

surprise! the dems and reps are the same thing. the hipocrosy is they both say they represent us and really they represent the people donating money to them and the busineses that they individually own.

the real difference is that they disagree on how fast to strip away our rights . there is a fine balance between taxing people enough to where they can get by but don't have enough time to see and take control of their country again, and taxing them too much so they revolt. or instead of taxation you can insert stripping away rights .

it's the bastardazation of democracy from european old money/monarchies.

anyway, no one is ready to deal with this yet so think of this as a dream.

_________________________________________

people see me as a challenge to their balance

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

I can't agree with you, there.

I have NEVER heard the Dems maintain that it is the people's right and duty to maintain the ability to physically, through force, depose any domestic government if it at some point becomes tyrannical.

On the other hand, even as Reps govern in whatever way they govern, they at the same time espouse that the people should maintain (via ARMS) the ability to overthrow a government that becomes tyrannical. That would lead me to believe that they have less of a plan to become more and more restrictive on the people than the supposedly "liberal" Dems do.

After all, it is only logical that the one who most vehemently opposes your ability to employ force is the one most like to attempt in the future to oppress you. He doesn't want you to be able to fight back!

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[freeryde13 0]

Quote

I can't agree with you, there.

I have NEVER heard the Dems maintain that it is the people's right and duty to maintain the ability to physically, through force, depose any domestic government if it at some point becomes tyrannical.

me niether but i've never heard the reps say it either, i 've read that the founding fathers ( franklin maybe )said it and ment it. however , no disagreement in spirit there with you.

On the other hand, even as Reps govern in whatever way they govern, they at the same time espouse that the people should maintain (via ARMS) the ability to overthrow a government that becomes tyrannical. That would lead me to believe that they have less of a plan to become more and more restrictive on the people than the supposedly "liberal" Dems do.

if it makes you feel better to believe in your "team" to the end that's cool, and i do understand your argument. the way people keep power is to confuse the people with idealistic tangents . true conservitism is about liberty, keeping the government out of peoples lives , isolationism, fiscal responsibility, and strictly following the constitution. the republican party has drifted so far from that, that the yuot dem the dems in most ways.

After all, it is only logical that the one who most vehemently opposes your ability to employ force is the one most like to attempt in the future to oppress you. He doesn't want you to be able to fight back!

it's like the guy whos wife cheats on him after he's been loyal to her for so long.... what does he do, face the pain and leave her, or refuse to believe she was unfaithful no matter what to not feel the betrayal . again the words you say make sense, but the reality says differently. i don't believe at all that just because the reps have always suppoted gun rights ( and that's the one thing i give them credit for) that the are defending the common mans freedoms ........... but , it is for each man/woman to search themselves and seek enlightenment however they do best in order to find the truth that guides their life......peace.




-

_________________________________________

people see me as a challenge to their balance

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

I can't agree with you, there.

I have NEVER heard the Dems maintain that it is the people's right and duty to maintain the ability to physically, through force, depose any domestic government if it at some point becomes tyrannical.

On the other hand, even as Reps govern in whatever way they govern, they at the same time espouse that the people should maintain (via ARMS) the ability to overthrow a government that becomes tyrannical. That would lead me to believe that they have less of a plan to become more and more restrictive on the people than the supposedly "liberal" Dems do.

After all, it is only logical that the one who most vehemently opposes your ability to employ force is the one most like to attempt in the future to oppress you. He doesn't want you to be able to fight back!

-

What a load of rubbish. If your government comes after you with the resources at its disposal, you won't stand a chance regardless of how many Glocks you own. It isn't 1776 any more, they have really serious stuff that you simply can't get.

Of all the arguments in favor of gun ownership, that is the most absurd by far.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Nightingale 0]

Sure, that argument doesn't work when only a few people own guns. The argument is a lot stronger for places like Switzerland, where everyone owns a gun.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Sure, that argument doesn't work when only a few people own guns. The argument is a lot stronger for places like Switzerland, where everyone owns a gun.

I look at it that the that argument is not realistically used as support of the 2nd anymore. That is, if you ask a gun lobbbist why they are supporting gun rights, they are probably not going to say, "To give us guns so we can overthrow the government if we need to." Instead they are going to use the basic premise, "Because the 2nd says we can bear arms."

So, using the argument that Republicans are in favor of guns for safety from the government (when they ARE the government) is just not a realistic one anymore because that is not the rationale they put forth.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[TrophyHusband 0]

so your saying that since we the people couldn't possibly match tyrannical governments resources we should be left with nothing and just roll over and take whatever comes? that is a load of rubbish.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Sure, that argument doesn't work when only a few people own guns. The argument is a lot stronger for places like Switzerland, where everyone owns a gun.

"... where everyone owns a gun..."

That's not correct. Every guy who ever was in the army has to keep his weapons. Just in case of, just to be prepared......Most of them really dislike it.

The majority of private persons is not interested in owning any guns. Swiss folks are peace-loving.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[akarunway 1]

"What a load of rubbish. If your government comes after you with the resources at its disposal, you won't stand a chance regardless of how many Glocks you own. It isn't 1776 any more, they have really serious stuff that you simply can't get." ____________________________________________________You took the words right outta my mouth

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

surprise! the dems and reps are the same thing. the hipocrosy is they both say they represent us and really they represent the people donating money to them and the busineses that they individually own.

the real difference is that they disagree on how fast to strip away our rights .

I like the post. But I'd say the government isn't "stripping" the rights away so much as they want to strip them and then "lease them back" to use for $$$$. Much like the same attitude they have with our money.

Politicians want all the resources, all the land, all the money, all the rights (all the women, all your base). Then they want to trade it back to us for more power. They are designed to cater to special interest rather than everyone.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Darius11 12]

Quote

They are not able to see their own lies and hypocrisy. Nor would they want to.

Yea I am so happy that your statement can not be applied to republicans HAHAHAHA


Dude you crack me up.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Amazon 7]

Quote

On the other hand, even as Reps govern in whatever way they govern, they at the same time espouse that the people should maintain (via ARMS) the ability to overthrow a government that becomes tyrannical. That would lead me to believe that they have less of a plan to become more and more restrictive on the people than the supposedly "liberal" Dems do.

Want to bet about the response of this administration after the next attack in this country by Al Queada?

Did you watch Red Dawn at your last Militia meeting???

[Channman 2]

> No, he didn't. Not in all cases. He even had the house of US citizen searched without a warrent. That guy was eventually sent to prison for spying.

Having to go back through history with these guys is killing me. Not that it will make any difference.

[Channman 2]

> What a load of rubbish. If your government comes after you with the resources at its disposal, you won't stand a chance regardless of how many Glocks you own. It isn't 1776 any more, they have really serious stuff that you simply can't get.

Well, I would just add that the guys driving the M1A tank have to get out once and awhile. When they do, you can reach out and touch them with a .308 and you now have a M1A tank. Do you think they keep the Owners Manual in the glove compartment?

[steve1 5]

Quote

Quote

I can't agree with you, there.

I have NEVER heard the Dems maintain that it is the people's right and duty to maintain the ability to physically, through force, depose any domestic government if it at some point becomes tyrannical.

On the other hand, even as Reps govern in whatever way they govern, they at the same time espouse that the people should maintain (via ARMS) the ability to overthrow a government that becomes tyrannical. That would lead me to believe that they have less of a plan to become more and more restrictive on the people than the supposedly "liberal" Dems do.

After all, it is only logical that the one who most vehemently opposes your ability to employ force is the one most like to attempt in the future to oppress you. He doesn't want you to be able to fight back!

-

What a load of rubbish. If your government comes after you with the resources at its disposal, you won't stand a chance regardless of how many Glocks you own. It isn't 1776 any more, they have really serious stuff that you simply can't get.

Of all the arguments in favor of gun ownership, that is the most absurd by far.

I don't think it's absurd at all...People were saying the same thing when we invaded Iraq. After all our army, supported by our government, has some really serious stuff in it's arsenal. Yet, here it is years later, and a determined yet vastly outgunned group of people are still fighting back with any weapon they can find. I wonder how long it will be before our country gives up over there and pulls out.

The same thing in Vietnam....I remember Johnson lecturing about how an enemy soldier that lives in a hole and survives on a handful of rice a day, can't possibly beat our country which had Phantom jets and B-52 bombers...Yet look at what happened there.

I think the same thing could happen in this country. if the government ever gets too oppressive citizens can and will fight back, (just like in 1776). I think that thought is alive and well even in todays world.

Don't get me wrong...I love my country and accept many of it's imperfections, but if our government ever became tyranical, and wasn't the U.S. anymore, I'd be one of the ones fighting back, and not just giving up because I didn't have a guided missle in my home arsenal....Steve1