General Music Chat

Anyone who would kill has left all semblance of sanity behind, politics included. It is pointless to discuss a killer's political beliefs.

Anyone who would kill has left all semblance of sanity behind, politics included. It is pointless to discuss a killer's political beliefs.

This would, necessarily, then include everyone in, and those directing, all the military's of the world throughout history.

Political affiliation is simply all propaganda.


It is all leftist (for the most part) and media propaganda that emerges every time there is a shooting. It is always brought up as a reason for the Left to take away our right to bear arms, NOTHING MORE. It is simply an opportunity for politicians to disarm us and take away more of our freedom, nothing more.

An unarmed populace is an easy populace to subdue through the efforts of tyrants whose sole goal is to rule over you as kings.

well, why is it so often presumed it has to be an either/or black/white proposition re gun control? gun CONTROL does not have to mean disarming the entire populace.

i have no problem w folks' right to bear arms but as i see it that doesn't mean everyone has the right to own a stockpile of automatic weapons.

and too often after some wackjob goes to town w their stockpile of AK47's and the subject of gun control comes up... the gun crowd's rallying cry is " look out, they're trying to take all our weapons away from us"

i heard something recently (so, i'm not stating this as fact) along the lines of bush passing more restrictions and legislation re. gun control than obama has.

if that's true then my question is why the great outcry about obama trying to take folks' guns away and why wasn't there the same outcry over bush.

Political affiliation is simply all propaganda.


It is all leftist (for the most part) and media propaganda that emerges every time there is a shooting. It is always brought up as a reason for the Left to take away our right to bear arms, NOTHING MORE. It is simply an opportunity for politicians to disarm us and take away more of our freedom, nothing more.

An unarmed populace is an easy populace to subdue through the efforts of tyrants whose sole goal is to rule over you as kings.

well, why is it so often presumed it has to be an either/or black/white proposition re gun control? gun CONTROL does not have to mean disarming the entire populace.

i have no problem w folks' right to bear arms but as i see it that doesn't mean everyone has the right to own a stockpile of automatic weapons.

and too often after some wackjob goes to town w their stockpile of AK47's and the subject of gun control comes up... the gun crowd's rallying cry is " look out, they're trying to take all our weapons away from us"

i heard something recently (so, i'm not stating this as fact) along the lines of bush passing more restrictions and legislation re. gun control than obama has.

if that's true then my question is why the great outcry about obama trying to take folks' guns away and why wasn't there the same outcry over bush.

Thats how the Brits lost their guns that type of thinking right there! At first well I don't guess I need that AK next thing you know well "we" have decided you don't need a handgun, then well now "we" dont think you need that rifle, then bullets, then shotgun!
After that the only ones with guns are the criminals bringing them up thru that porous border to the south! You Liberals are NOT CAPABLE of useing common sense when letting the GUBMENT ERODE AND CHIP AWAY AT YOUR RIGHTS! Get your head out YO @ss and use some common sense MAN!

[

Thats how the Brits lost their guns that type of thinking right there!

and you know for a fact that most brits would trade their low murder rates, and lack of gun violence for the RIGHT to carry?

i don't know that for a fact. i suspect that many if not most of them are perfectly happy w that tradeoff.

At first well I don't guess I need that AK next thing you know well "we" have decided you don't need a handgun, then well now "we" dont think you need that rifle, then bullets, then shotgun!

yeah, 'cause that's EXACTLY how it worked w free speech. first they made it against the law to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre and then pooof....next thing you know we were stripped of our right to free speech!

After that the only ones with guns are the criminals bringing them up thru that porous border to the south!

oh man...really? that old tired and lame argument???? take a look at countries that have stricter gun laws like canada for instance. folks can still get their guns to hunt and shoot sh*t up....just not as easily so. and what do they get in return? hardly any gun violence and a ridiculously low murder rate.

you don't think it's a good tradeoff. i do. viva la difference.

You Liberals are NOT CAPABLE of useing common sense when letting the GUBMENT ERODE AND CHIP AWAY AT YOUR RIGHTS! Get your head out YO @ss and use some common sense MAN!

yeah, but tests show most liberals know how the word "using" is spelled!

tell ya what J, i'll remove my head from my ass when you do the same. clearly we both have different definitions of "common sense".

if you're worried about your rights and being able to do whatever you want i'd suggest you find some deserted island to make your home. or go live in a cave and never come out...but if you want to live in a society you do have to make compromises on what you can and can't do. it's called democracy. sure ain't perfect but it's been around for awhile and it is the best game in town

so, as much as you might wanna scream "FIRE" in a crowded theatre ...sorry but your right to free speech is superceded by safety concerns for the greater population. so, why should your right to own guns be any different when it does effect other's safety?

you want freedom to arm yourself w whatever weapon you choose.....sorry J, you might be one of the last people i'd wanna see walking around w a rocket launcher or a bunch of grenades hanging from your ammo belt.

and in the interests of clarity....the brits didn't "lose their guns".....it's just more difficult for folks to acquire them.

then again how often d'ya hear about some wackjob in the UK who's been stockpiling weapons walking into a church or theatre and shooting up the place????

Even tho the Nazi name has Socialist in it, they are considered far/extreme right. They're not left. They were Fascist, not socialist.

Far right ideologies tend to focus on superiority of a certain group, strong social hierarchy, religious/fanatical fundamentalism, and a whole host of other things.

It's a bit more complicated. Fascism, socialism and communism all share a common trait: They value the rights of the nation above the rights of the individual and the end result is totalitarianism. It is the Achilles heel for all three ideologies and results in their unraveling. Maintaining individual rights and freedoms in this country is our best defense. Our founders clearly understood this.

http://www.holocaust-education.dk/baggr ... eologi.asp

THANK YOU JOHNNY!!!!!!!!!

That sorta puts it the way it should be.

Maintaining individual rights and freedoms in this country is our best defense. Our founders clearly understood this.

unless of course you happened to be a slave. or a woman.

and it's not quite as clear or simple as merely "maintaining individual rights"

.....who's rights? the folks who were slaughtered by that nutjob had THEIR right to worship as they choose violated by said nutjob's right to bear arms.

it's a VERY complicated issue and merely pointing at the constitution as the be all and end all doesn't quite always get it. things in it that were relevant over 200 yrs ago do sometimes need to be readdressed.

flexibilty=good thing. blind and rigid unbending thinking not so good thing.

Political affiliation is simply all propaganda.


It is all leftist (for the most part) and media propaganda that emerges every time there is a shooting. It is always brought up as a reason for the Left to take away our right to bear arms, NOTHING MORE. It is simply an opportunity for politicians to disarm us and take away more of our freedom, nothing more.

An unarmed populace is an easy populace to subdue through the efforts of tyrants whose sole goal is to rule over you as kings.

well, why is it so often presumed it has to be an either/or black/white proposition re gun control? gun CONTROL does not have to mean disarming the entire populace.

i have no problem w folks' right to bear arms but as i see it that doesn't mean everyone has the right to own a stockpile of automatic weapons.

and too often after some wackjob goes to town w their stockpile of AK47's and the subject of gun control comes up... the gun crowd's rallying cry is " look out, they're trying to take all our weapons away from us"

i heard something recently (so, i'm not stating this as fact) along the lines of bush passing more restrictions and legislation re. gun control than obama has.

if that's true then my question is why the great outcry about obama trying to take folks' guns away and why wasn't there the same outcry over bush.

Thats how the Brits lost their guns that type of thinking right there! At first well I don't guess I need that AK next thing you know well "we" have decided you don't need a handgun, then well now "we" dont think you need that rifle, then bullets, then shotgun!
After that the only ones with guns are the criminals bringing them up thru that porous border to the south! You Liberals are NOT CAPABLE of useing common sense when letting the GUBMENT ERODE AND CHIP AWAY AT YOUR RIGHTS! Get your head out YO @ss and use some common sense MAN!

has the murder rate gone down In Great Britain since they took the guns away?

Posted: 07 Aug 2012 08:59 pm Post subject:
THANK YOU JOHNNY!!!!!!!!!

That sorta puts it the way it should be.
_________________

Maintaining individual rights and freedoms in this country is our best defense. Our founders clearly understood this.

unless of course you happened to be a slave. or a woman.

Hmmmm, not quite sure what you mean by this. Were women or slaves any less oppressed in 1776 China (foot binding), North Africa(genital mutilation), India, Germany, England, Arabian peninsula??? Oppression in 1776 was a function of the period, not the new US government.

It has taken a while but individual rights and freedoms have expanded a great deal since 1776. Native Americans, women and immigrants have never had more personal freedom and opportunity in the last 200 years than they do now. We still have a way to go though. Let's not muck it all up by adopting a "government please save me" policy.

The problem with individual rights and freedoms is that it requires personal responsibility. Some handle this better than others.

THANK YOU JOHNNY!!!!!!!

Damn,, I like smart people. Especially when they happen to be good musicians.

Maintaining individual rights and freedoms in this country is our best defense. Our founders clearly understood this.

unless of course you happened to be a slave. or a woman.

Hmmmm, not quite sure what you mean by this. Were women or slaves any less oppressed in 1776 China (foot binding), North Africa(genital mutilation), India, Germany, England, Arabian peninsula??? Oppression in 1776 was a function of the period, not the new US government.

It has taken a while but individual rights and freedoms have expanded a great deal since 1776. Native Americans, women and immigrants have never had more personal freedom and opportunity in the last 200 years than they do now. We still have a way to go though. Let's not muck it all up by adopting a "government please save me" policy.

The problem with individual rights and freedoms is that it requires personal responsibility. Some handle this better than others.

he's most likely referring to the fact that , without some form of political activism or civil disobedience,
freedom and rights remain the province of the well arm or well funded.
a case in point would of course be the civil war.
had the south not attacked the union, 1964 would most likely be remembered for the year we finally outlawed slavery in the remaining southern states.

personal responsibility is of course necessary to keep rights you inherit through birth,
it is of no value in securing rights that you are denied by an authority which refuses to grant such rights in the first place.