Understanding the rhetoric from the conservative right

I am sure I share with many citizens a concern for the uncivil and bombastic rhetoric expressed by the conservative right.

[flat lander]

WOW THAT IS A GOOD OPINION from your point of view but thanks and NO thanks. I will do my own thinking if you don't mind or you in charge of school of not.

[estanson]

try to square this opinion with the Vermont Constitution:

"Article 16th. Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power."

turns out its only the goverment that shouldnt have guns...too bad the Browns didnt live in VT...

either way, this lady would like to re-write history without regard for history.

and have any of you paid attention on these boards? its the liberals who have ben bloodthirsty and blind...they refuse to communicate...

this blind passion for your political party is the burnout of the two party system, it is the death of independent thought...
this letter writer sounds indoctrinated...worse than the far right ya-hoo militia types!

[morgan]

The most fallacious aspect of Mr. Farrington's obviously sincere and well articulated position is the term "automatic firearms". Gun owners, easily tarred with the term "Right-wing fanatics", have known forever that the term "automatic" is a code word that inflames well meaning citizens who have not been trained in firearm nomenclature.

"Automatic weapon" means a weapon that fires multiple rounds for one pull of the trigger. These are military weapons and have been Federally regulated since the Thirties. Violation of any aspect of Federal firearms law is already good for ten years or more in Federal prison.

"Semi-automatic" weapons are self-loading firearms that cycle the action by the recoil of the previous round. Thus, one trigger pull, one round. This type of action is found in virtually all police weapons, many hunting firearms and many smallbore firearms, such as .22's that children still hunt squirrels with.

The anti-gun lobby has exploited the ignorance of terminology to attempt to ban perhaps eighty per cent or more of legally held firearms, both handgun and long gun.

Perhaps sincere and well spoken people such as Mr. Farrington could help resist this dishonesty and recognize that no one is advocating for civilian ownership of fully automatic weapons, and recognize that attempts such as those by Mr. Leahy are either unnecessary at best, or else part of the political movement that wants to disarm law-abiding United States citizens.

[confused]

Mr Farrington has a lot in common with the character of Cliff, from the the TV show Cheers. They both share the same flaws. Knowledge on every subject, an inflated sense of importance, and a non-listening audience. He needs to learn that sometimes less is more. And so does the Reformer. This should have been edited to halve of its lenghth.

[Right Wing Extremist]

The first sentence says all we need to know about this person....hater alert.

Oh, and thank you for your interpretation of the second amendment. Save a tree....

[New Clear Waste]

The writer is just saying, Just because the 2nd amendment says you can have guns, doesn't mean you can have any kind of guns. That much is obvious; you couldn't allow RPGs and artillery in people's garages, for instance. You couldn't allow individuals or gangs to possess greater firepower than law enforcement, or we would turn into Mexico.

[estanson]

New Clear Waste wrote:

The writer is just saying, Just because the 2nd amendment says you can have guns, doesn't mean you can have any kind of guns. That much is obvious; you couldn't allow RPGs and artillery in people's garages, for instance. You couldn't allow individuals or gangs to possess greater firepower than law enforcement, or we would turn into Mexico.

some would argue that we dont want uncle sammy have all the big guns....and if you hadn't noticed, the criminals get whatever they want, RPG's uzzi's...its the law abiding folks who need rights...

[New Clear Waste]

estanson wrote:

<quoted text>
some would argue that we dont want uncle sammy have all the big guns

Yeah - gangsters and insurgent-wannabes. We have WAY more to fear from those people than we do from law enforcement.

estanson wrote:

....and if you hadn't noticed, the criminals get whatever they want, RPG's uzzi's

If you hadn't noticed, no they don't. It's an offense to possess those things, and you'll get incarcerated for your pains.

It's a fantasy among right-wingers with small peenises that they need to have the biggest guns around. The regular ones will do you just fine.

[Master Yoda]

.....why don't we examine the COMMUNIST "rhetoric" from what is called the "left"????

[estanson]

New Clear Waste wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah - gangsters and insurgent-wannabes. We have WAY more to fear from those people than we do from law enforcement.
<quoted text>
If you hadn't noticed, no they don't. It's an offense to possess those things, and you'll get incarcerated for your pains.
It's a fantasy among right-wingers with small peenises that they need to have the biggest guns around. The regular ones will do you just fine.

so criminals dont have these huge weapons because they are against the law? read the news!

second are you a woman? You must be because they are the only ones who try to drop the small pen!s thing like we are six years old ...well you have small t!ts...who the f cares?

if you cant understand why citizens dont want the government and police to have the only guns you should read the vermont constitution and an elementary school history book...

[Vermont citizen]

Let gun advocates have any gun they want. Just don't let anyone buy, sell, or give away one without a paper trail. And make sure they are made to produce the gun once a year to make sure they are still the owner.

That satisfies the Constitution. The second amendment says nothing about the right to secretly own a gun.

[New Clear Waste]

estanson wrote:

<quoted text>
so criminals dont have these huge weapons because they are against the law? read the news!
second are you a woman? You must be because they are the only ones who try to drop the small pen!s thing like we are six years old ...well you have small t!ts...who the f cares?
if you cant understand why citizens dont want the government and police to have the only guns you should read the vermont constitution and an elementary school history book...

I'm sorry I upset you. I didn't actually think my remark would hit so close to home.

[estanson]

New Clear Waste wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm sorry I upset you. I didn't actually think my remark would hit so close to home.

it didnt...
I'm actually HUGE...
so what?

but you didnt answer the questions...

are you a woman trying to emasculate men?

do you not see a reason "we the people" may want to have some weapons?

[New Clear Waste]

estanson wrote:

do you not see a reason "we the people" may want to have some weapons?

Since you ask the same question, I'll repeat the same answer: Have weapons if you want. The regular ones should do you fine. You don't need more firepower than law enforcement. If you think you do, you're either part of a gang or a latent domestic terrorist, like Timothy McVeigh. You'll have to pardon the rest of us if we're not comfortable with you outgunning the police.

[Joe]

New Clear Waste wrote:

<quoted text>
Since you ask the same question, I'll repeat the same answer: Have weapons if you want. The regular ones should do you fine. You don't need more firepower than law enforcement. If you think you do, you're either part of a gang or a latent domestic terrorist, like Timothy McVeigh. You'll have to pardon the rest of us if we're not comfortable with you outgunning the police.

McVeigh was in the military.

People in the military and on police forces are mostly right wingers who don't like deadbeats so the people the government supplies lots of BIG guns to are the ones who would most likely overthrow libtardism.

[Joe]

Formed in March, they are ex-military and police who repledge themselves to defend the Constitution, even if it means disobeying orders. If the U.S. government ordered law enforcement agencies to violate Second Amendment rights by disarming the people, Oath Keepers will not obey.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan1...

[estanson]

New Clear Waste wrote:

<quoted text>
Since you ask the same question, I'll repeat the same answer: Have weapons if you want. The regular ones should do you fine. You don't need more firepower than law enforcement. If you think you do, you're either part of a gang or a latent domestic terrorist, like Timothy McVeigh. You'll have to pardon the rest of us if we're not comfortable with you outgunning the police.

one thing I can tell is that you don't speak for anybody buy yourself...so i wouldnt pretend to...

second...are you a vermont resident...you should read the VT Constitution (Art 16)...you may be surprised...

I also find it funny that you equate gun ownership to crime...or terrorism...firm rules huh?
doesnt require a lot of thinking...
if guns then terrorist...you sound more and more like a republican!