Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What I'm Giving Up in 2012(mega barg alert)
otherwords.org ^ | 16 January, 2012 | Donald Kaul

Posted on 01/16/2012 7:14:32 AM PST by marktwain

I generally make New Year's resolutions in hopes of becoming a better person — more disciplined, healthier, or, at the very least, less pathetic. Some of these resolutions last until nightfall. Some don't. None ever sees February.

This year, I'm taking a different approach. I'm going to concentrate on giving up things. Not things like smoking — been there, done that. I mean giving up on ideas I have pursued through the years into one blind alley after another.

Ideas like climate change, for example.

You and I both know that the earth is heating up, right? Everybody knows that, with the possible exception of oil executives, the owners of coal mines, and Republican politicians.

Yet no number of hurricanes, droughts, floods, wild fires, melted glaciers, or columns by granola liberals like me has inspired a somnolent Congress to confront the problem.

Why? Money, of course.

If money is the mother's milk of politics (and it is), then the oil and coal industries are the biggest mothers on the block. They own our political system lock, stock, and sleazebag.

As a result, our energy policies are crafted largely by the extraction industries, which care little if at all about global warming, clean water, or breathable air. Meanwhile, the Earth's poorest nations, who sat back for 200 years while the countries known as "the West" burned forests, polluted the air and water, and made a lot of money, now want their turn at the trough.

It's hopeless. Even if we suddenly got serious about the issue, it's probably too late. We've reached a point where the warming already out there is producing a dynamic that will produce more warming.

So I'm giving up on writing about climate change. You can start the next oil spill without me.

I'm also giving up on gun control.

Over the years, I've written I don't know how many columns urging that some control be placed on the sale of weapons that go bang. Dozens probably, possibly even scores of them.

Every time some clown would go berserk and mow down a baker's dozen of his fellow citizens, I would deliver a rant about the idiocy of our failure to do something about the proliferation of guns in our society.

Did it do any good? Even less than my global warming columns. There are more guns out there now than ever, and states have grown increasingly permissive about where and how people can pack heat.

In other words, the battle has been lost. The absurd arguments of the National Rifle Association and the Merchants of Death lobby have carried the day.

Why? Money, of course. Too many politicians have learned that to deviate even the slightest degree from the NRA's absolutist positions is to invite a truckload of money into your opponent's campaign, ensuring your electoral defeat.

The argument I find most absurd, by the way, is the constitutional one. Yes, the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. But "arms" back then had as much resemblance to modern weapons as an 18th-century schooner has to a nuclear submarine.

Do you think our founding fathers would have looked at an assault rifle that can fire at a speed of 400 rounds a minute and said: "Oh yeah, that's a good thing to have around the house"? Or "Everybody should have one"?

Get real. The Constitution is a wonderful document, but it's outmoded in many ways. Consider the preposterousness of North Dakota having the same number of senators as California. But it's not going to change any time soon, at least not for the better.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Forces of Darkness are in the saddle, and they're wearing spurs.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: banglist; bargalert; climate; constitution; dementalillness; guns; leftganda; leftuniverse
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last
This is a good example of leftist thought. No matter how many facts get in the way of this authors worldview, he will find it impossible to change it. This is a part of the human condition. If is almost impossible to change our basic assumptions about the universe and how it works.

The author has assumed that the levers of power in society are controled by business people with money, and that those people are willing to do enormous evil to get more money. This is a basic tenet of Marxism.

Conservatives generally understand that money is only one aspect of life, and that people have a will to control other people even if it means losing money to do so.

This is why it is necessary to have limits on government power. A business cannot force you to buy its products, but a government can.

It is rather sad to see someone so delusional about reality, but it has become increasingly common on the left.

1 posted on 01/16/2012 7:14:40 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All


Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


2 posted on 01/16/2012 7:15:41 AM PST by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Do you think our founding fathers would have looked at an assault rifle that can fire at a speed of 400 rounds a minute and said: "Oh yeah, that's a good thing to have around the house"? Or "Everybody should have one"?

You betcha!

3 posted on 01/16/2012 7:17:59 AM PST by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

This guy is soooooooooooo much smarter than the Founding Fathers. We should just burn the Constitution, give this guy a pen, and say “Tell us how it should be!”


4 posted on 01/16/2012 7:18:38 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (Nothing will change until after the war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Rurudyne; steelyourfaith; Tolerance Sucks Rocks; xcamel; AdmSmith; ...

Thanks marktwain.
Ideas like climate change, for example. You and I both know that the earth is heating up, right? Everybody knows that, with the possible exception of oil executives, the owners of coal mines, and Republican politicians. Yet no number of hurricanes, droughts, floods, wild fires, melted glaciers, or columns by granola liberals like me has inspired a somnolent Congress to confront the problem.

5 posted on 01/16/2012 7:19:40 AM PST by SunkenCiv (FReep this FReepathon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

The writer of this whining screed might very well be the living embodiment of the term “idiot.”


6 posted on 01/16/2012 7:19:40 AM PST by Grunthor (I am a conservative, neither half of the one party represents my views.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Madame Dufarge

Do you think our founding fathers would have looked at an assault rifle that can fire at a speed of 400 rounds a minute and said: “Oh yeah, that’s a good thing to have around the house”? Or “Everybody should have one”?

The uninformed author is describing a fully automatic weapon, which is already not legal to own.


7 posted on 01/16/2012 7:20:36 AM PST by winner3000 (ss)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Madame Dufarge

Do you think our founding fathers would have looked at an assault rifle that can fire at a speed of 400 rounds a minute and said: “Oh yeah, that’s a good thing to have around the house”? Or “Everybody should have one”?

The uninformed author is describing a fully automatic weapon, which is already not legal to own.


8 posted on 01/16/2012 7:20:36 AM PST by winner3000 (ss)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I usually wear spurs around the house. That’s just what we “Forces of Darkness” do.


9 posted on 01/16/2012 7:21:59 AM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

—Ideas like climate change, for example. You and I both know that the earth is heating up, right? Everybody knows that, with the possible exception of oil executives, the owners of coal mines, and Republican politicians. Yet no number of hurricanes, droughts, floods, wild fires, melted glaciers, or columns by granola liberals like me has inspired a somnolent Congress to confront the problem.—

That is exactly the one I focused on. It’s a pet issue of mine. I’ve been a “denier” from way back and have compiled a list of literally HUNDREDS of articles debunking the phony science.

But two things really jumped out. First “everybody knows”. This person needs to watch more John Stossel on pretty much any subject and learn the fallacy of such a statement. Second, “Yet no number of hurricanes...”. They are down, nut up.

The whole article is an exercise in filling space with pap and meeting a writing deadline with less than ones best. A lot less - unless the writer truly is an idiot.


10 posted on 01/16/2012 7:25:28 AM PST by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Doofus is as doofus does

11 posted on 01/16/2012 7:26:14 AM PST by Baynative (The penalty for not participating in politics is you will be governed by your inferiors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: winner3000

Me thinks the author would be horrified to know that our founding fathers had to LEASE warships during the revolutionary war from PRIVATE OWNERS.... in other words, if a man had the money and desire to have a warship, he could order it and have it built... the same for cannon... The idea of the second amendment is to have the citizenry capable of and legally allowed to possess, the same weapons our military has.. this includes ships, planes, tanks, cannon and “machine guns” ... this is to allow the citizenry to overthrow a government gone rogue.....but, the libs can’t have THAT now, can they?


12 posted on 01/16/2012 7:27:32 AM PST by joe fonebone (Project Gunwalker, this will make watergate look like the warm up band......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Quote from the article:

“Do you think our founding fathers would have looked at an assault rifle that can fire at a speed of 400 rounds a minute and said: “Oh yeah, that’s a good thing to have around the house”? Or “Everybody should have one”?”

Yes, dumbass, I think they would say that.


13 posted on 01/16/2012 7:28:48 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I feel like giving up. The GOP has six candidates still running (until 11 today anyhow). Five of them are raging statists and one is a foreign policy idiot.

Willard will be the nominee. Get over it. We’re going to run our own gun grabbing, baby killing, homo loving, big goobermint health caring, Harvard educated elitist against the one currently in office just because he has an R after his name. Don’t worry. Obama is going right back in there because Donald T. Rump will be running as an independent, just like Soros tells him to in order to fulfill Perot’s role as stalking horse for the DUMBASSED AMERICAN VOTERS.

I’ll be voting for the foreign policy idiot, because I believe the greatest danger to American liberty (not freedom, there is a difference), safety and prosperity does not come from the Maoists in China or the Muslims in Iran, but from the unelected and unaccountable Maoists and Muslims currently operating and legislating within our own govenment agencies.

Work on the Senate and work on the House. The rest is hopeless.


14 posted on 01/16/2012 7:29:11 AM PST by noprogs (Borders, Language, Culture....all should be preserved)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

—Every time some clown would go berserk and mow down a baker’s dozen of his fellow citizens, I would deliver a rant about the idiocy of our failure to do something about the proliferation of guns in our society. —

Q: How often does that actually happen?
A: Not often enough to take guns out of the hands of the rest of us who actually do GOOD with them (like protect ourselves from criminals)


15 posted on 01/16/2012 7:31:03 AM PST by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
The argument I find most absurd, by the way, is the constitutional one. Yes, the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. But "arms" back then had as much resemblance to modern weapons as an 18th-century schooner has to a nuclear submarine.

Do you think our founding fathers would have looked at an assault rifle that can fire at a speed of 400 rounds a minute and said: "Oh yeah, that's a good thing to have around the house"? Or "Everybody should have one"?

In that same time frame, a weapon in the hands of US citizen soldiers turned the tide. The long rifle was instrumental in the defeat if Burgoyne and also contributed in other important battles.

The long rifle had as much in common with the smooth-bore musket that the recurve bow has with an atlatl. Incidentally, the musket had a higher rate of fire. By the writer's reasoning, we should have been defeated quickly. Idiot author.

16 posted on 01/16/2012 7:31:50 AM PST by edpc (Wilby 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

—Did it do any good? Even less than my global warming columns.—

There is good news in that comment: That the author believes that the Global Warming luddites lost.


17 posted on 01/16/2012 7:32:07 AM PST by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Truthfully, I’d settle for Donald just “giving up breathing,” myself. Anyone that cannot understand the reason for State Representation (i.e., TWO Senators from each state) doesn’t deserve to call themselves ‘American’.

A curious citation for sure in his reasoning mentioning North Dakota as reason NOT to have two Senators for each state; what’s his explanation for Rhode Island? Hmmmmm? Do Rhode Islanders sniff their farts to keep the methane out of the atmosphere or something?


18 posted on 01/16/2012 7:33:01 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Madame Dufarge
"Everybody should have one"?

Methinks they would have preferred TWO.

One for the back, one for the front.

19 posted on 01/16/2012 7:36:43 AM PST by UCANSEE2 (Lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: noprogs

I understand how you feel - with respect to the Republican candidate field, it’s as if a circus clown cars drove into the ring and disgorged its cargo.

But I’m not laughing, either.


20 posted on 01/16/2012 7:36:43 AM PST by Noumenon ("I tell you, gentlemen, we have a problem on our hands." Col. Nicholson-The Bridge on the River Qwai)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

This horses behind should try occupying reality.


21 posted on 01/16/2012 7:38:02 AM PST by Noumenon ("I tell you, gentlemen, we have a problem on our hands." Col. Nicholson-The Bridge on the River Qwai)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Wow! You really know how to wake a girl (me) up don’t you!


22 posted on 01/16/2012 7:39:22 AM PST by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Do you think our founding fathers would have looked at an assault rifle that can fire at a speed of 400 rounds a minute and said: "Oh yeah, that's a good thing to have around the house"? Or "Everybody should have one"?

Yes, yes they would have. Especially at Lexington, Concord, Saratoga, Yorktown, etc etc ad infinitum.

Or, they would have said "A Weapon that's near 100% reliable in all weather conditions, virtually jam-proof, and accurate out to as far as I can see? It will keep my family well-fed so long as I have ammuntion? Signest me up!"

Liberal projection is endlessly fascinating.

23 posted on 01/16/2012 7:41:37 AM PST by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: winner3000

the “author” also forgets muskets were seen that way in those centuries.

The pope even once argued for arms control regarding CROSSBOWS!


24 posted on 01/16/2012 7:49:26 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“Every time some clown would go berserk and mow down a baker’s dozen of his fellow citizens, I would deliver a rant about the idiocy of our failure to do something about the proliferation of guns in our society”

I guess he could go live in Mexico. I hear they have some very strict laws on gun ownership.


25 posted on 01/16/2012 7:49:45 AM PST by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“Do you think our founding fathers would have looked at an assault rifle that can fire at a speed of 400 rounds a minute and said: “Oh yeah, that’s a good thing to have around the house”? Or “Everybody should have one”? “

Based on what they wrote, yep. When they wrote those words, if you had enough money you could outfit your own warship, complete with cannons- the most destructive things in the 18th century world. That didn’t seem to faze them- why? They understood the reality of things- no government deserves a monopoly on deadly force, not even ours. They understood that people not only have the right to oppose tyranny, they also have the right to own the means to resist it.

“In other words, the battle has been lost. The absurd arguments of the National Rifle Association and the Merchants of Death lobby have carried the day. “
I’m glad he’s conceding; however, I would like to point out that it is the arguments FOR gun control that are absurd. The proposition that if one goes around weaponless then one is safer is inherently illogical.


26 posted on 01/16/2012 7:50:06 AM PST by GenXteacher (He that hath no stomach for this fight, let him depart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Noumenon

Gee, he throws in the fact that each state has two senators in his screed here.

I’m surprised he didn’t bring up other liberal complaints about the constitution, such as slavery being allowed, women not having the right to vote, etc. I’m surprised he didn’t launch into other liberal screeds such as how we’re starving public education to fund the military, and how we are a racist, sexist, homophobic bigoted society. If he’s going down this road, why not cover all the bases?


27 posted on 01/16/2012 7:53:27 AM PST by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Ditter

Thanks for the compliment!


28 posted on 01/16/2012 7:57:25 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Well look on the bright side. At least he’s giving up the fight. LOL!!


29 posted on 01/16/2012 8:00:29 AM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
"Consider the preposterousness of North Dakota having the same number of senators as California."

I wholeheartedly agree with him. The people that California keeps sending to DC should disqualify them from having Senators.
30 posted on 01/16/2012 8:10:22 AM PST by j_k_l
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

This is some funny stuff. Another self-important leftist realizes his audience isn’t much bigger than the number of fingers on one hand.

It would be greater but half his family hates him too.


31 posted on 01/16/2012 8:25:11 AM PST by VeniVidiVici (Obama's War on Prosperity is killing me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: winner3000

Fully automatic firearms are legal for individuals to own.

But it is not a simple, cheap process for individuals to own them.

http://www.impactguns.com/content.aspx?page=howtoorder


32 posted on 01/16/2012 8:40:17 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Madame Dufarge

I think our founding fathers would have been very pleased.


33 posted on 01/16/2012 8:50:48 AM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Yes they give up or get persuaded by the ladies in tennis shoes and next thing you know all those little things for the good of all strip us of our rights and freedoms


34 posted on 01/16/2012 8:57:10 AM PST by Tubac414 (Just want to ride my Motorcycle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: noprogs

One raging statist is dropping out and endorsing the gun grabbing, baby killing, homo loving, big goobermint health caring, Harvard educated elitist.


35 posted on 01/16/2012 8:59:57 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Occupy DC General Assembly: We are Marxist tools. WE ARE MARXIST TOOLS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
"... Do you think our founding fathers would have looked at an assault rifle that can fire at a speed of 400 rounds a minute and said: "Oh yeah, that's a good thing to have around the house"? Or "Everybody should have one"?

On the other hand, back then everyone's rifle was an 'assault rifle'.

36 posted on 01/16/2012 9:23:53 AM PST by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Madame Dufarge

Yep according to what was said by them during the process of writing it they wanted us to have the same firepower as our government so our government could not enslave us.I think the left would be mortified to hear what he founding fathers would say about their ideas.


37 posted on 01/16/2012 11:35:08 AM PST by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Consider the preposterousness of North Dakota having the same number of senators as California.

Clearly the wisdom of our Founding Fathers is lost on this loon. The reason each state has two Senators is to prevent larger states from imposing their will on smaller states.

The Senate provides the balance to the House of Representatives in which larger, more populous states have greater representation than smaller, less populous ones do.

Absent the critical balance the Senate provides, we'd have MOB RULE, much like we did the first two years of the Obama Administration when Democrats owned both and could impose their will, literally by force, upon the rest of us.

It is the imposition of will by force of Democrat majority that the author is really bemoaning here.

Liberals are truly only happy when they can tell the rest of us what to do.

Eff him, the entire Democrat Party, and the Republican "Establishment" which seeks to do the same thing in our Primaries.

38 posted on 01/16/2012 11:37:28 AM PST by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone

Interesting...did not know that.

Is the idea of the Second Amendment really to let the citizens have the same weapons as the military?

I thought the “right to bear arms” just meant guns. So you’re saying it means citizens should legally be allowed to possess aircraft carriers and tactical nukes?


39 posted on 01/16/2012 12:43:16 PM PST by WPaCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: WPaCon
Is the idea of the Second Amendment really to let the citizens have the same weapons as the military?

The idea was that an armed citizenry would be far stronger than any army the Government could pay for.

I suspect that it would take quite a while for the idea of nuclear weapons to take hold. It is rather hard to determine how they would handle it. They might well want the State governments to have and control them.

40 posted on 01/16/2012 12:52:35 PM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
I suspect that it would take quite a while for the idea of nuclear weapons to take hold. It is rather hard to determine how they would handle it. They might well want the State governments to have and control them.

I'm fairly comfortable with the current state of affairs, if you can afford one you can have one. It's just that they aren't really very useful if your aren't a nation state (read gang of armed thugs convinced of your moral superiority).

41 posted on 01/16/2012 1:00:00 PM PST by Mycroft Holmes (Returned for regrooving...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Guns obviously have self-defense purposes and a citizenry armed with guns can keep government in check.

I don’t see how a tactical nuke could possibly provide for self-defense. If anything, I’d see a nutcase obtaining one and killing thousands. If a nutcase gets a gun, you can shoot him. But if he detonates a nuke, its too late for anything to be done about it. A warship is similar to a nuke in those respects. That’s why I’m surprised to hear about how it was legal for private citizens to own them.


42 posted on 01/16/2012 1:01:30 PM PST by WPaCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: WPaCon
Is the idea of the Second Amendment really to let the citizens have the same weapons as the military?

I thought the “right to bear arms” just meant guns. So you’re saying it means citizens should legally be allowed to possess aircraft carriers and tactical nukes?

Yes indeed. In fact, the Constitution of the United States explicitly recognizes the private ownership of warships with the following from Article 1 - The Legislative Branch Section 8 - Powers of Congress:

The Congress shall have Power To ... declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

It goes on with more quaint and now discarded notions about how to run a country. Interesting reading, really.

43 posted on 01/16/2012 1:17:29 PM PST by Mycroft Holmes (Returned for regrooving...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv; Dr. Bogus Pachysandra; grey_whiskers; ApplegateRanch; Whenifhow; WL-law; ...
Thanx for the ping SunkenCiv !

 


Beam me to Planet Gore !

44 posted on 01/16/2012 1:24:23 PM PST by steelyourfaith (If it's "green" ... it's crap !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: WPaCon
A warship is similar to a nuke in those respects. That’s why I’m surprised to hear about how it was legal for private citizens to own them.

It is still legal for private citizens to own them. It just takes a lot of permits and red tape.

I do not know of any law that forbids private citizens from owning nukes, as such. The laws regulating nuclear materials are strict and the permitting process quite extensive. I think it would be possible for a person with the financial means to own a nuke legally. It would just cost billions of dollars to do so.

I know a number of people that own armored vehicles. I think Dillon of the Dillon press company owns at least one armed helicopter.

There is likely some well heeled individual that owns a small warship, perhaps PT boat sized.

45 posted on 01/16/2012 1:35:21 PM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: chris_bdba
I think the left would be mortified to hear what he founding fathers would say about their ideas.

I have a feeling they wouldn't even discuss it much.

The author is a post turtle.

46 posted on 01/16/2012 2:22:04 PM PST by TigersEye (Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: WPaCon
I thought the “right to bear arms” just meant guns. So you’re saying it means citizens should legally be allowed to possess aircraft carriers and tactical nukes?

Why do leftists immediately go to the furthest extreme in any debate? There are a plethora of weapons between a rifle and a tactical nuke.

47 posted on 01/16/2012 2:29:12 PM PST by TigersEye (Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

The journalistic embodiment of a turd, and a creation in it’s maker’s image.


48 posted on 01/16/2012 2:44:35 PM PST by AnTiw1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
Why do leftists immediately go to the furthest extreme in any debate?

I'm not a leftist and I'm not debating anyone, so you can can the insults.

49 posted on 01/16/2012 5:06:00 PM PST by WPaCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: WPaCon

You may not be a leftist but your argument was a classic leftist extreme straw man used time after time by the gun control lobby. It is not an insult to point that out it is simply an observation and that was all it was intended to be.


50 posted on 01/16/2012 5:59:43 PM PST by TigersEye (Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson