Only cowards need guns

[tallyho]

Denny Crain wrote:

<quoted text>Do you think the military would fire on citizens who were supporting the rights they have under the constitution? There would be a number of political assassination if they tried to seize guns by force. I know how people in Texas feel about their right to have guns. I hope the liberal come after this full out. They will be defeated in office. Nearly all states have carry laws now.

where in the hell do you keep getting this idea of seizing guns ,,,,, where in the hell do you live TEXAS

[milwaukee69]

Denny Crain wrote:

<quoted text>The point is in Iran the military did not support the government. Our military is very conservative and are sworn to defend the constitution. I don't think the military would take illegal orders.

Got news for ya' there Denny - the POTUS gives the military their orders - not the people.

[EraserX]

tallyho wrote:

<quoted text>
where in the hell do you keep getting this idea of seizing guns ,,,,, where in the hell do you live TEXAS

LMAO

It just amazes me how fast everyone jumps over the middle ground and assumes the worst. Guns will be legal in the US for a long, long time. And yet the only outcome these kooks can fathom is having Uncle Sam prying their cold dead hands apart. It's just flat out loopy.

I'd hate to live with such an irrational fear of my government.

[Hoosier Hillbilly]

That's for "DAMN" sure, he hasn't listened to "US" @ all! LOL!

[Hoosier Hillbilly]

PS: that's because I'm not =one-of-those= that voted him back-in.

[Ferrerman]

tallyho wrote:

<quoted text>
where in the hell do you keep getting this idea of seizing guns ,,,,, where in the hell do you live TEXAS

No one in Washington is talking about seizing guns at all. It's only the marketing genius's at the NRA and Bob's Gunz, Ammo & Bait that are promising that.

Sheesh- these people are easily led! Hostess could have squeezed millions more out of the republicans (for their CEO's) if they had only been smart enough to proclaim that Obama was going to confiscate Twinkies!

[milwaukee69]

REDNECK HIPPIE wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know where you got your info, but after perusing the entire site, I find it to be well thought out, informative, filled with verifiable sources and unbiased. Of course, that may not sit well with you, since you seem to want a totally biased source that on;ly supports your preconceived opinions.

Actually, no - but I do love to keep people honest. And the link you provided is written with a Conservative flavor, for lack of a better term.

The sentence I quoted is copied straight from their "About Us" page.

Sorry, didn't mean to piss you off.

[milwaukee69]

REDNECK HIPPIE wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know where you got your info, but after perusing the entire site, I find it to be well thought out, informative, filled with verifiable sources and unbiased. Of course, that may not sit well with you, since you seem to want a totally biased source that on;ly supports your preconceived opinions.

http://justfacts.com/aboutus.asp

[tallyho]

EraserX wrote:

<quoted text>
LMAO
It just amazes me how fast everyone jumps over the middle ground and assumes the worst. Guns will be legal in the US for a long, long time. And yet the only outcome these kooks can fathom is having Uncle Sam prying their cold dead hands apart. It's just flat out loopy.
I'd hate to live with such an irrational fear of my government.

agree

[EraserX]

tallyho wrote:

<quoted text>
agree

I'm not sure but that might just be a first.

[Denny Crain]

EraserX wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, I think a good percentage of them would. They are sworn to serve the government. Traitor is still an epithet that carries weight.
The conservatives are letting the lunatics ruin their party. I do sincerely hope that they manage to reign in the fringe. And, Denny, history will show that the liberals - at least in places - were on the winning team. Digging your feet in the dirt and screaming "NO!" is not a valid political position any more.
And I've lived in TX. I know all about that.

They are sworn to defend the constitution and they are not to follow an illegal order

[Denny Crain]

EraserX wrote:

<quoted text>
But the orders would be legal.

The supreme court has already ruled on the meaning of the 2nd amendment. Any order to seize guns would be an unlawful order. King Obama thinks all he has to do is give an executive order and he can ignore the congress and the constitution

[Hoosier Hillbilly]

You guys if "WE" don't fight and raise alittle hell
"WE" might get surprised! How well would that fit in your bonnet?

[tallyho]

EraserX wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm not sure but that might just be a first.

agreed ..... people don't like to be told that they are misinformed

[EraserX]

Denny Crain wrote:

<quoted text>The supreme court has already ruled on the meaning of the 2nd amendment. Any order to seize guns would be an unlawful order. King Obama thinks all he has to do is give an executive order and he can ignore the congress and the constitution

Denny, aside from you, who said anything about seizing your guns? Hokey smokes...

[Hoosier Hillbilly]

Denny he'll stay within his limits I'm sure or Boehner will cry.

[okimar]

tallyho wrote:

<quoted text>
ok show me a court transcript where the supreme court has sentence anyone to a sentence , nay kind of sentence
why is your civil rights so hard for you to understand ,
your civil rights are preserved by the supreme court not tried
the rights are already etched in stone ,
but hell have it your so you will feel better

The SCOTUS reviews cases in which there is a question of Constitutionality. Civil rights are guarenteed by the Constitution,but are PRESERVED-as are ALL Amendments,by the presence of a free and ARMED citizenry. THAT,my friend,is what the 2nd Amendment is all about. An ARMED citizenry keeps a Government on notice that it rules only with the consent of the governed and is allowed ONLY the powers granted it to do so. To go down the road of oppression is to risk a change of representation in that government.

[REDNECK HIPPIE]

milwaukee69 wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, no - but I do love to keep people honest. And the link you provided is written with a Conservative flavor, for lack of a better term.
The sentence I quoted is copied straight from their "About Us" page.
Sorry, didn't mean to piss you off.

Didn't pizz me off, I just thought that you were in attack mode.
Did you read the link you posted.

* Excluded Facts: The only "facts" excluded are those that are rendered pointless by other facts and those that do not meet the Standards of Credibility listed here.

* Accuracy: Just Facts does not use sources uncritically, and before citing them, we often perform investigative and feasibility studies to test their veracity. Just Facts is also committed to documenting the facts we publish far more thoroughly than standard academic practice requires. Hence, all of our research since 2001 contains footnotes with direct quotes and/or raw data from the cited sources. This allows readers to quickly verify that we accurately represent these citations. Our goal for every fact is 100% transparency.

* Estimates and Minor Discrepancies: These are handled by giving preferentiality to figures that are contrary to our viewpoints and by using the most cautious plausible interpretations of such data.

* Conclusions and Quotes: Every effort is made to keep quotes within context. Conclusions and quotes made by people with vested interests are excluded except to point out inconsistencies and hypocrisy.

* Balance: Our goal is comprehensive accuracy, not balance. Press outlets often provide quotes from people on opposing sides of an issue. This, in our opinion, is a charade. First, there is nothing to prevent a news source from quoting the most compelling argument from one side and the weakest from the other. Second, such soundbites are often loaded with rhetoric and misinformation. Our purpose is to publish verifiable facts regardless of the views they support, not to circulate half-truths and propaganda.

This does seem to me to be a fair, balanced, impartial organization. So maybe the conservative flavor you taste is just personal bias.

[okimar]

EraserX wrote:

Someone here will point out the whole Germany/Hitler thing. We can play that game, too. Do you imagine that no one stood up to Hitler? LOL So, assume that someone did. What do you imagine happened to that person?
Even 70 years ago, a gun was not enough to protect yourself from the tyranny of a government. It really is a fool's argument.

Tell that to the Libyans... Syrians... Southern Sudanese... You got nothing.

[tallyho]

okimar wrote:

<quoted text>The SCOTUS reviews cases in which there is a question of Constitutionality. Civil rights are guarenteed by the Constitution,but are PRESERVED-as are ALL Amendments,by the presence of a free and ARMED citizenry. THAT,my friend,is what the 2nd Amendment is all about. An ARMED citizenry keeps a Government on notice that it rules only with the consent of the governed and is allowed ONLY the powers granted it to do so. To go down the road of oppression is to risk a change of representation in that government.

a republic can not be a republic within its self..
other words states ruled within their borders, but must answer to the Central government... state militia was the law enforcement of the state , not the federal troops

we now have state police , didn't back in the beginning

but this becomes a tad complicated , no too lengthy to explain