The Common Sense, Progressive Type

[Kennedy 0]

I found this example of enlightened, forward thinking particularly entertaining.

Quote

Just as unions, pro-choice groups and other progressive organizations and movements were put on the defensive throughout much of the 90s and now the 2000s by right-wing groups with no conscience, so have those arguing for meaningful gun safety laws when confronted with men with an extra-Y chromosome lodged in their cerebral cortex.

The NRA, with the money at their disposal and their willingness to do anything to win, with an almost gleeful expression as they lessen the security of the American people, are bar none one of the most evil of these groups in the country. The sad thing is not just the Republicans, but good Democrats who bow down before them.

I wrote a column three years ago on this subject, so let me quote liberally from that piece, and how today it is even more important as the NRA fights to ensure every terrorist, criminal, child or mentally imbalanced person has access to an AK:

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[mnealtx 0]

Rather fun to watch the rabid barking moonbats foam at the mouth, isn't it?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[TypicalFish 0]

Quote

I found this example of enlightened, forward thinking particularly entertaining.

Quote

Just as unions, pro-choice groups and other progressive organizations and movements were put on the defensive throughout much of the 90s and now the 2000s by right-wing groups with no conscience, so have those arguing for meaningful gun safety laws when confronted with men with an extra-Y chromosome lodged in their cerebral cortex.

The NRA, with the money at their disposal and their willingness to do anything to win, with an almost gleeful expression as they lessen the security of the American people, are bar none one of the most evil of these groups in the country. The sad thing is not just the Republicans, but good Democrats who bow down before them.

I wrote a column three years ago on this subject, so let me quote liberally from that piece, and how today it is even more important as the NRA fights to ensure every terrorist, criminal, child or mentally imbalanced person has access to an AK:

Who said this?

"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

[squarecanopy 0]

An enlightened forward thinker might consider WHY the NRA is a powerful organization. It could be because they have the interests and financial backing of millions of members, and if the truth be known, a majority of law abiding Americans, behind them. They are as viable and useful an organization as any that exists in this country, and that is what pisses off those who do not agree with them. I am glad that those of us with no conscience can still safely have our opinions in this land.
The statement that the NRA supports machine guns for criminals is just WRONG. The NRA has done more for promoting gun safety than any organization in this country, and that is not an opinion but a FACT that is easily proven, which also pisses off the opposing factions.

Just burning a hole in the sky.....

[Kennedy 0]

My fault, forgot to include the source.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cliff-schecter/the-nra-must-go-d_b_56119.html

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

In a society where, sadly, the choice may be between giving up a few rights or having a weapon of mass destruction set off down the street, the former would seem to trump the latter. Shouldn't this same sacrifice of some freedoms also apply to gun owners?
Why would we not do all we can to keep guns out of the hands of those we deem to be dangerous or deranged?

Same source.

Nice, huh?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

In a society where, sadly, the choice may be between giving up a few rights or having a weapon of mass destruction set off down the street, the former would seem to trump the latter. Shouldn't this same sacrifice of some freedoms also apply to gun owners?
Why would we not do all we can to keep guns out of the hands of those we deem to be dangerous or deranged?

Same source.

Nice, huh?

I was just going to quote this. THIS quote, more than anything, epitomizes those groups on both the right and the left. The statement is very clear - "there are freedoms that I do not believe that we should have."

As is presently situated, Republicans believe that the freedoms against warrantless searches and seizures, etc., do a horrible thing by preventing access to information that could prevent terrorist killings, etc. Many are righteously infuriated with this - I'm one of them. Some believe that freedoms and rights such are this are freedoms we just shouldn't have anymore.

Here, we've somone who believes that the the right to bear arms is a right that we shouldn't have. In the name of keeping guns out of hands of possible terrorists we should just prevent the sale of weapons - or track the sale to "suspected" terrorists.

See, I always thought that "rights" were there to protect those people who are most vulnerable. "Rights" are there to ensure that the majority or like-minded individuals can feel secure in being in the majority. Rights are there to ensure that the minorities, "non-mainstream," and even kooks and weirdos are given the same opportunities and chances as anyone else.

Hey - Mr. Schechter - remember this quote? "What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

To paraphrase Mr. Henry, when shall we be a stronger country? Will we be a stronger country when every person is disarmed and there is an armed guard stationed on every corner to wreak violence on anyone who may wreak violence on you?

Is a country without firearms a stronger country? Is a country whereupon the security and peace of the country is the sole responsibility of the government? I think not, for at that time it is a government "of the people" but not "by the people." Many will say it is "for the people" but at what cost?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SpeedRacer 1]

wow.

Doesn't the word "liberal" mean you're supposed to STAND UP for individual rights???

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Darius11 12]

“From my cold dead hands”

An armed public is a safe public.
Criminals still will get the guns from other sources, we should make it easy for the general public to be able to arm them selves.
What is that saying “I rather be tried by twelve then carried by six" When it comes down to it that about says it all.

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

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

wow.

Doesn't the word "liberal" mean you're supposed to STAND UP for individual rights???

I like liberal amounts of ice cream. I can 'kinda' turn that into an individual right argument. But it's really a stretch.

...
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

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

wow.

Doesn't the word "liberal" mean you're supposed to STAND UP for individual rights???

It depends on the rights. There is an irreconcilable tension between rights. For example, a person has the right to be free from discrimination. A person has the right to speech - even if it's racist speech.

So, how do you resolve this? By banning the racist speech? Many on the left support this way of doign things. When rights collide, you pick a winning side. We all do.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[NCclimber 0]

Anyone else caught George Will's column, yesterday?
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2007/07/15/farewell,_antioch