An interesting thread here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1315463

Interesting poll. When I took it, 18 of 18 people had voted yes. This means that everyone believes there is a point when revolution will be necessary in the U.S.


It will be interesting to see how the poll works out over time, but assuming this trend holds, how will such a revolution be possible if everyone is disarmed?

Nat

not eye says popeye.

will be disarmed? There are enough guns in private ownership in this country to give two to every man, woman, child, and baby! I don't think we'll have to worry about that at all.

And for those who think we should be disarmed, realize that the American Revolution itself wouldn't have been possible if the citizens had not had their own private guns.

Actually, the battle of Lexington and Concord started because Governor Gage ordered British troops to confiscate guns, munitions, and provisions from the citizens.

we see how well that went over with them, lol!

stored in the collective armory at Concord.

If they'd have been individually-owned guns, the British army could have gone from house to house in boston....

who truly want to disarm all law abiding people in the US.

BTW, there are supposed to be around 300 million guns in the US, which is enough for everybody, not two for everybody. However, a bunch of them are obsolete and not functional.

But a lot of them are in the hands of Freeper types. I can't understand the left's tendency to disarm itself in the face of such fundamentalist aggression.

I just bought this one in response to my perception of an economic downturn and statist abrogation of civil liberties.
Like the Clash said: "When they kick at your front door, how you gonna come? With your hands on your head or on the trigger of your gun?" From "The Guns of Brixton".

What IS that point, exactly?

Is that everyone can plainly see the road we are heading down, especially with * at the helm. As of right now, 97% of the poll respondents think a revolution is inevitable.

If you think a revolution is coming, how are you going to fight it if you are disarmed, like some people want us to be?

Nat

"everyone can plainly see the road we are heading down, especially with * at the helm"
Some of us sure can see it plain...since they're not particularly hiding it, or anything...

""Were it not for your active involvement, it's safe to say my brother would not be president of the United States," Bush said.
He added that he and his brother both support the NRA's argument that the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment makes bearing arms an individual right with few restrictions.
"The sound of our guns is the sound of freedom," said Bush."

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/summaries/reader/0%2C2061%2C563037%2C00.html

Yeah, THAT *....

Hell of a revolution you're going to have, trumpeting how swell the tyrant's policies are....

How your post has anything to do with the current thread.

Nat

I fail to see anything in the RKBA side of this rubbish beyond a disgraceful craving to shoot somebody and get away with it.

And it's no coincidence that the lousiest administration in US history is pushing this idiotic "you gotta have a gun" rubbish.

n/t

such a simple-minded poll?

"You say you want a revolution...we all want to see the plan." So far I don't see nothing but the usual truculent gun lust combined with a whopping dose of NRA horseshit.

Mr. Benchley:

Do you think the U.S. will experience a revolution at some point in the future?

Nat

That when push comes to shove, some people just refuse to answer a simple question.

I find this consistent with most anti-gun folks. When painted into a corner, they won't answer the question that points out they are in a corner.

We make the case that firearms are necessary in case of rebellion.

Antis say we are full of crap for believing that firearms are needed for such a purpose.

When asked if a rebellion is a possibility, they clam up. Why? Easy: Admitting that a rebellion is possible leads directly to the question of how one would go about rebelling, which is usually done with the assistance of firearms of some sort.

So the only solution is to admit you are wrong, or refuse to answer.

The silence does indeed, as they say, speak volumes.

Nat

We make the case that firearms are necessary in case of rebellion.

Where'd ya do *that*??

I believe someone made the case that firearms have been used in rebellions. Sounds like a far cry, to me, from "firearms are necessary in case of rebellion".

Doors have been opened with sledgehammers. Are sledgehammers necessary in case of door-opening? Are sledgehammers the best way to open doors?

We've all seen those cartoons where people rush at closed doors to break them down, and somebody opens the door and they fall on their faces.

Open doors ... ballot boxes ... amazing how they work.


Admitting that a rebellion is possible leads directly to the question of how one would go about rebelling, which is usually done with the assistance of firearms of some sort.

You know anything of the history of the world after about, oh, 1800?

Compare and contrast: India post-1947 and Guatemala post-1954. Poland post-1989 and Chile post-1973. South Africa post-1994 and Nigeria post-1983.

(I include Poland not because I admire the new régime, but because of the successful bloodless "rebellion".)

Maybe you even know that there were revolutions in Britain long before any of your founding fathers were even gleams in their mothers' eyes.

The first, which ousted the monarchy, was violent and ultimately unsuccessful, after the experiment in republicanism failed and the monarchy was invited back. (Someone I claim as a collateral ancestor was the military man assigned to go get the king in question.)

The second was different -- and even a little egalitarian on the gender front: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution

In 1689, the Convention Parliament convened and declared that James' flight amounted to abdication. William and Mary were offered the throne as joint rulers, an arrangement which they accepted. Despite an uprising in support of James in Scotland, the first Jacobite rebellion, and in Ireland where James used local Catholic feeling to try to regain the throne in 1689-1690, the revolution was remarkably bloodless. It can thus be seen as much more of a coup d'état than an authentic revolution. England stayed calm throughout, the uprising in the Scottish Highlands was quelled despite the Jacobite victory at the Battle of Killiecrankie, and James was expelled from Ireland following the Battle of the Boyne.

The Glorious Revolution was one of the most important events in the long evolution of powers possessed by Parliament and by the Crown in England. With the passage of the Bill of Rights it stamped out any final possibility of a Catholic monarchy, and ended moves towards monarchical absolutism in the British Isles by circumscribing the monarch's powers.

It was bloodless, and it was the one that counted.

And now I shall wait for the wails of "bad King George" from those who really just don't know either their own or anyone else's history ...


typo fixed

.

bloodless revolutions are great.

For every bloodless revolution, there are probably countless bloody ones.

Question:

Do you think violent revolution in the U.S. is a possibility?

Nat

Do you think violent revolution in the U.S. is a possibility?

Well yes, it's possible that someone snuck in the back door and battered Mr. X's wife to death with one of Mr. X's shoes while Mr. X was watching TV and drinking beer ...

It is undoubtedly possible that some day, a pig will fly.

Now of course, we need to be straight about what you're asking.

Do you mean: is violent revolution in the US a thing that may exist or happen, something that might come to pass in the future ...

or do you mean: is violent revolution in the US a thing that is capable of existing or happening, for which the necessary prerequisites are present?

If you mean the former, I'd say "no" -- or, more accurately, "probably not". I don't think that violent revolution in the US is something that may happen. In the same way that I don't think that me shovelling snow out of my driveway in July is something that may happen.

It's within the realm of the conceivable, just like the possibility that Mr. X didn't kill his wife. But it is so very improbable that *I* would not call it "a possibility", except under very close cross-examination, when one would basically have to agree that anything is possible, perhaps.

If you mean the latter, I'd say "yes" -- or, more accurately, "probably". There are assorted evil nutbars in the US who undoubtedly have the desire to engage in, and the means of undertaking, actions that could reasonably be called "violent revolution"; thus violent revolution is something that is capable of happening, if we think of those factors as the necessary prerequisites.

But then, so is me purchasing a firearm something that is capable of happening: I got the dough, I qualify for a firearms licence. It still isn't going to happen. So is it "a possibility"? You wanna tell me?

.

That was an awful lot of air to simply say, "No". Why all the hair splitting?

So you don't think a revolution in the U.S. is likely.

Glad to finally get to an answer. Now we can proceed.

Firstly, I would say that it is extremely naive to think that the U.S. has arrived at the pinacle of freedom and democracy, and will never experience revolt again.

Question: Why do you think our founding fathers put the 2nd ammendment in the constitution?

Secondly, just because the possibility is remote does not mean that we should not prepare for it. It is unlikely that my house will burn down. I still carry fire insurance for it. It is unlikely that my house will be flooded. I still carry flood insurance. It's unlikely I will need accidental death and dismemberment insurance. I still carry it, too.

In my opinion, an armed populace helps to insure that a government won't turn against its governed, for fear of the consequences. The government over a disarmed populace does not have that fear.

Nat

Firstly, I would say that it is extremely naive to think that the U.S. has arrived at the pinacle of freedom and democracy, and will never experience revolt again.

... someone had actually said that s/he thought that.

You were right after all. You aren't engaged in a discussion.

Cripes, for someone to accuse moi of thinking that the US has arrived at the pinnacle of freedom and democracy -- that is just too bizarre to even contemplate. *I* think that the US is the least free and least democratic of any nation in the western/developed world. I apologize if anything I've said led you to some other conclusion.

Question: Why do you think our founding fathers put the 2nd ammendment in the constitution?

Question: Why, do you think, she put the lime in the coconut? I never could figure that one out.

In my opinion, an armed populace helps to insure that a government won't turn against its governed, for fear of the consequences. The government over a disarmed populace does not have that fear.

In my opinion, people who spend their time thinking and nattering tripe like this either have nothing meaningful to do with that time, or have an agenda that is furthered by persuading other people that they are talking sense.


Since you're asking moi why those founders & framers put that second amendment in your constitution, I'd say it was for the same reason they put anything else in your constitution: to protect their own interests. Their interests, really, not being the same as the interests of a majority of the people in what became the USofA.

Really. Is someone suggesting that that constitution of yours was adopted by some democratic process, and that it was designed to do anything but protect the interests of a particular class of people?

You heard of Shays' Rebellion?

http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/Shays.htm

As usual when I cite a source stating opinions, I do not adopt those opinions unless I expressly say so. This is just the result of a quick google, offered to provide you with information you may not have, and a point of view you may not have considered.

Given what even the beloved Jefferson (beloved of right-wingers, as far as I can tell) had to say about that little turn of events (the site above provides examples of what some of his comrades had to say) --

http://earlyamerica.com/review/summer/letter.html

I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.

-- it's quite obvious to me that he regarded the government, not the rebels, as the beneficiary of rebellions. The rebellion in question completely failed to obtain the redress that the rebels sought. The government could afford to be tolerant. The ruling élite had lost nothing. And quite obviously, even greater repression may lead to a more successful rebellion.


You folks had a revolution that replaced one oligarchy with another, and have just never moved on. And me, I just don't see another violent revolution as likely to do much to fix that problem. Lessons unlearned are lessons unlearned, and shooting guns at the people that any of you don't like just isn't going to solve the problem.

Grown-ups in the modern world don't rely on threatening their governments with pop-guns to keep them in line. They vote for governments that will act in the public interest, and they vote them out if they don't.

.

that when Founding Father George Washington (I know he's not as important as Tench Coxe or George Mason, but he did have something to do with the early days of this country) was faced with the Whiskey Rebellion, he didn't say "Oh goody, the Second Amendment just like we drew it up."

Firstly, I would say that it is extremely naive to think that the U.S. has arrived at the pinacle of freedom and democracy, and will never experience revolt again.

... someone had actually said that s/he thought that.

You were right after all. You aren't engaged in a discussion.

Cripes, for someone to accuse moi of thinking that the US has arrived at the pinnacle of freedom and democracy -- that is just too bizarre to even contemplate. *I* think that the US is the least free and least democratic of any nation in the western/developed world. I apologize if anything I've said led you to some other conclusion.

I see what kind of person you are. You are one of those folks you can't have a discussion with because when you draw an obvious inference from what they have said, they come back with "I didn't SAY that!"

It's like trying to nail down jello. You win. I waste no more time on you.

Nat

The "obvious inference" from me saying that it's plain silliness to talk about an armed rebellion in the USofA is that I think that the USofA has reached the pinnacle of democracy and freedom. Uh ... yeah.

Hey sister, can you paradigm? All too obviously. And without a thought to the possibility that not everyone lives in yours. (That one's more than a possibility; it's a certainty. So ya might want to take it into consideration.) No, I really am not Francis Fukuyama. Surprise!

The thing about some people drawing "obvious inferences" is that all it does is make obvious what they're really doing.

Think how much more persuasive they might be if they just addressed what is said to them, instead of what it possibly meant.

Well, not much, really, so I guess it isn't surprising to see them playing let's pretend so much. Grasping at straw people, eh?

.

"When asked if a rebellion is a possibility, they clam up. Why?"
Perhaps because I don't feel like joining in any rebellion with the sort of person who gleefully daydreams about killing someone over Froot Loops and lying to the police afterwards.

Or perhaps, because as I am saying for the THIRD fucking time, it's a simple-minded question of the sort that only an imbecile would take seriously.

"The silence does indeed, as they say, speak volumes."
Whereas the mindless din from the trigger-happy is as meaningless after a prolonged exposure as when it started.

Perhaps because I don't feel like joining in any rebellion with the sort of person who gleefully daydreams about killing someone over Froot Loops and lying to the police afterwards.

I never said I gleefully daydream about killing anyone.

Being ready, willing, and able to do a nasty chore does not mean one relishes doing it.

Nat

I'm still bemused by a person who asks the question "Simple or simple-minded?", GETS the answer "simple minded", and THEN complains publicly that she doesn't think she's got an answer to her question...

I'll thank anybody who wants to pull me to ask me first.

Pull my finger, eh?

.

how will such a revolution be possible if everyone is disarmed?

I dunno.

How will such a revolution be possible if low-flying pigs are causing traffic jams everywhere?

.

if those urging their fellow citizens to take arms have nothing but ludicrous arguments, blatantly revisionist history and preposterous lies to rouse them?

with all those flying pigs causing traffic delays?

So, if history doesn't meet your criteria of beliefs, it is revisionist then? The point, is that the British were coming to take away the colonists' arms. Without weapons, they would have had no way to resist what they believed was a tyrannical government. They knew this, and the rest is history.

Guess you're going to have to wait before you can start shooting your fellow citizens under the guise of "revolution."

n/t

With a snicker or a hoot.

The real answer, of course, is that if it becomes "necessary", it's already too late.

I wouldn't be expecting all the folks who elected the horrible evil tyrants whose blood needs to be watering cherry trees to be suddenly wanting to rise up against 'em.

And I would expect quite a few of those folks to have a firearm or two in their kitchens, themselves.

But I do enjoy watching a good revolution-fantasy fest among the excitement-deprived, or perhaps over-excited or very excitable.

.

Ok.

Nat

Hmm. So you never discuss hypotheticals situations.

Hmm. If only you could quote someone who said that. Your statement about me would of course still be false, nonetheless.

Maybe CO Liberal can offer you some instruction on parsing sentences, and particularly on the effect of what we call "modifiers". I'm bored.

.

is that every once in awhile one of these darlings gets over-excited and shoots a postman, or blows up a daycare center, to strike tagainst "tyranny"...

Still, a pretty penny is made at gun shows selling this sort of propaganda to hate-filled nutcases and simpletons.

Revolution is never gonna happen again. Oh wait, it just happened in Nigeria? Nah, isolated incident. Hmm.. what about Liberia last year? Eh, another isolated incident...

Anyway, who needs rebellion when you've got satellite TV and a new car?

doesn't move en masse to Liberia or Somalia...there's no gun control laws at all and they got that revolution the RKBA crowd seems so hot to participate in...

Wait a minute, what was the reason we were supposed to jettison our gun control laws again?

...and only imagining what they would have in store for us over the next 4 years if we are unlucky enough to have them win in November, it really makes me wonder. Wonder why anyone could be so blinded by their hatred of guns that they would actively campaign, at this moment in time, to disarm the only people who would be willing to do something about the catastrophes that might arise.

I wonder why anyone who claims to hate this current administration would be regularly poring through websites like American Daily and National Review and trying to persuade others that they were sites of value....

"disarm the only people who would be willing to do something"

Wonder why anyone could be so blinded by their hatred of guns that they would actively campaign, at this moment in time, to disarm the only people who would be willing to do something about the catastrophes that might arise.

Is how anybody could be fool enough to think, or why anybody would be deceitful enough to say s/he thinks, that those particular people would be using their firearms to oust the government *they* voted in ...

Do I know anyone like that?

Or, wait, do I know someone trying to disarm anyone?

.

that start the revolution. You know, the ones in the majority.

Those who don't think its worth 20 minutes of their lives to go to the polling place, are suddenly going to become committed enough to put their actual lives on the line when the lead starts flying....stirred by glorious rhetoric like "Don't hold your breath. I'm certainly not interested in convincing you."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=48192&mesg_id=48634&page=

Lotsa luck with that, feeb.

By the way, who was that posted a thread pushing Jackney Sneeb's "Non-Voter's Manifesto?" Oh yeah, that was feebmaster....

No wonder you're trying to fob him off on others...

Jackney Sneeb's "Non-Voter's Manifesto" and for that matter I've never read it.

Maybe those people who "don't think it's worth 20 minutes of their lives to go to the polling place" just don't see the point when their choice is to vote for a Republican who wants to take away their rights or vote for a Democrat who wants to take away their rights.


I don't see what my post to Pert_UK has to do with anything. He said, "Nobody has ever offered me any compelling evidence for regarding gun ownership as a right." I responded with "Don't hold your breath. I'm certainly not interested in convincing you," because he, like so many others, isn't interested in being convinced that gun ownership is a right. No one is going to offer him or anyone compelling evidence because no evidence is going to be compelling to them.

By all means, though, keep crying about Jackney Sneeb. You still haven't told me what your position and his is on concealed carry and need.

"Maybe those people who "don't think it's worth 20 minutes of their lives to go to the polling place" just don't see the point when their choice is to vote for a Republican who wants to take away their rights or vote for a Democrat who wants to take away their rights."
Or maybe they'd rather sit home, play with their guns, and daydream about shooting the postman and getting away with it. Myself, I'm a liberal Democrat, and that's why I am here at Democratic Underground, a website for Democrats and progressives. But then I vote, and try to offer others good reasons why they should.

"No one is going to offer him or anyone compelling evidence because no evidence is going to be compelling to them."
Especially not dishonest and ill-thought-out rubbish such as we see the RKBA crowd serving up on a daily basis here.

I've linked this manifesto?

"Or maybe they'd rather sit home, play with their guns, and daydream about shooting the postman and getting away with it."

I don't know. I think a lot of gun owners, at least a majority of them vote. Most of them vote stupidly, however.

"Myself, I'm a liberal Democrat, and that's why I am here at Democratic Underground, a website for Democrats and progressives. But then I vote, and try to offer others good reasons why they should."

I used to think I was progressive. But then it was pointed out to me that the Republicans are pro-gun and the Republicans want to end the war on drugs and I got confused. Now I'm in the middle of a crisis of belief. All these years I thought the Republicans wanted to take people's rights away and now here on DU of all places I've been told that it's the Republicans who, in fact, want to give people their rights back. I just don't know what to believe anymore. :eyes:

still doing your hilarious Sergeant Schulz impression....

"I used to think I was progressive."
Really.? Did anybody else think so? You sure got a lot of convincing to do if you want me to believe it....

you can't find convincing evidence for...

In case anyone is interested I've come up with a disclaimer of sorts to try and prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future. I started a thread here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x958864

"Ever link an outside website and watched a potential discussion on the issues turn into a 130 post flame fest on the merits of arguing about the message vs arguing about the messenger?"
Say, feeb...YOU'RE the one trying desperately to avoid the issues on YOUR link...and trying to fob the MESSENGER off on somebody else. In fact you even want to pretend you've NEVER READ "the message."

But then I'll doubt anybody else outside the usual band of "enthusiasts" in the gungeon tried to pass off right wing websites as information to be taken seriously...or posted anything as gloriously dimwitted as the philosophy of Jackney Sneeb...

"a 2 line news blurb from newsmax or worldnetdaily because no one else has a link yet"
Now why would anybody possibly want to put a turd from a place like that on here and pretend it should be taken seriously as a "public service" or even as a "news blurb"?

I'd love to respond to this post, but I am busy promoting my disclaimers for links idea up in the lounge.

what they think of Jackney Sneeb....

"18 of 18 people had voted yes. This means that everyone believes..."
There are more than 42,000 members of DU...

...and it has nothing to do with guns.

By and large, we Americans are not made of the same stuff as our forefathers. We're soft, weak, and sissified. Most of us, were we to find ourselves magically transported to the 1770's, would would simply die of horror at the lack of indoor plumbing.

We have been taught for so long that violence isn't the answer to everything that we now believe it isn't the answer to anything. We're no more capable of staging a revolution than 4 year olds in a daycare can organize a walkout.

And all the firearms and ordnance in the world ain't gonna change that.

Well, I guess it's time for the "enthusiasts" to start posting photos of their long hard guns AGAIN (snicker).

"Most of us, were we to find ourselves magically transported to the 1770's, would would simply die of horror at the lack of indoor plumbing."
Well, thank goodness the RKBA crowd is here to sell us the joys of crapping outdoors and wiping with a pine cone afterward.

<sarcasm>Gonna be a helluva revolution with issues like these, all right. </sarcasm>

Bob Boudelang ain't got nothing on the RKBA crowd.

Hey, I saw that great patriot got another column squeezed in to the DU front page the other day! :thumbsup:

We need more folks like him at DU!

Karen Huge is back to explain how Our Great President is not really an idiot like he looks. And unlike those femiNazis, she will not complain that she is paid less than the men in the Administration and cannot decide for herself if she gets pregnant. That is because she focuses on real issues, like why the Constitution should be changed to stop gayo-Americans from getting married before we go to Mars.

Ever read Bob's column on guns?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/bob/01/2001_bob_02.html

:boring:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be in fringe"

Hey, anyone know if he ever got that promotion to produce manager?

Bob was unjustly railroaded out of his job (and no one actually could prove he was humping a plugged watermelon--he was just leaning funny, that's all. Gee wiz!) and then falsely accused of making those harassing phone calls (and he really didn't need a phone anyway).

He went from there to the job of scraping gum off the bus station floor (due to the tyranny of affirmative action, which made him have towork for a Hispanish person). However, he was first promoted to Part Time Free Lance Janitorial Consultant, and then downsized because his personal hero, the billionaire Liston MacIntyre, had to let all those workers goso he could have his bonus.

Bob then got a job sweeping up hair in Mr. Munchino's friendly neighborhood barbershop, but he left in part because Mr. Munchino wouldn't buy Bob a gun to protect the patrons against Alkaheeda ("Piss off, nutso," he explained).

Then there was a stint at the CheapMart as Santa Claus (Someday he will learn that hitting is no way to motivate employees) and you cannot prove the fire was Bob's fault.

So now he hauls fish guts out at the fish store, waiting for a call to replace Rush Limbaugh or Donald Rumsfeld...It's the Bush Economic Miracle!

I've never cared much for those columns. Way too predictable. If you've read any three paragraphs of any of them, you've read them all.

Meet Dick Little: http://www.frankmagazine.ca/dicklittle/

Dick Little's Canadian Blog

“GODSPEAD YANG LIWEI” JUST DON’T SOUND RIGHT!
Holy Moley, I hear they just put a red chinaman in outer space. This is even worse than when them Russians put a dog in orbit. The chinaman’s bite, see, is always worse than his bark. It’s not just that he’s up there somewhere, watching us. It’s that there’s more than one bloody billion of them. I know space is pretty big, but it’s not like it’s infinite or anything.

And what’s worse, it’s like the Americans just don’t give two shits about space anymore. It’s a damn shame, because it’s the Yanks what’s been keeping space from becoming the bailiwick of foreigners and communists. If we let all sorts into orbit, there goes the neighborhood.

By way of disclaimer, that's parody.

Unfortunately, Frank doesn't make much stuff available on line; Dick's bi-weekly columns are available only by subscription or at the 7-11 on the corner.

.

is the Good Soldier Schweik: "On to Belgrade!"

More Dick; Frank has expanded its on-line repertoire.
http://www.frankmagazine.ca/passim/view.php?id=426

BUDDIES IN BAD MARRIAGES!
I wish we had a man like Mr. Bush up here what would stand up for traditional marriage: the bitching, the silent treatment, the whole nine yards. Hell, if we had any guts, we'd go ahead and make buggery a crime again. (Except when it's between a man and a woman, as God ordained.)

I don't know why the gays want to get married anyhow. It's not like we're having one big party and they're not invited. (Though if we were having a party, I wouldn't invite them.) If it wasn't for them having sex with other guys, I'd say they got it pretty good. No kids, no responsibilities, nobody to say "I'm not putting that in my mouth."

Here's my bottom line: if homos get to be married, then normal people ought to get our own bath houses. It's the right thing to do.

http://www.frankmagazine.ca/passim/view.php?id=404

GEORGE BUSH LETS DOWN HIS GUARD!
Geez, leave it to the Democrats to play politics with something as important as an election. Now they're sounding all shocked about George Bush having gone AWOL, but if it had been Clinton, they'd be saying how proud they was for his sticking it to "the Man."

So what if Mr. Bush didn't even serve in the Air National Guard? I seen him on TV in flight suits and the like, and I swear, I haven't seen a better wartime Commander-in-Chief since Cliff Robertson in PT-109. All trussed up like that he presented a nice package for the ladies, and we all know how the ladies like a nice package. If he was AWOL, he must have seen his squadron for the coddled rich boys they were. Hell, I'd have been ashamed myself to report for duty with the likes of them. Must have turned the man's stomach. I don't care what you say, no one can tell me George Bush was born with a silver coke spoon in his mouth. For one thing, it's practically physically impossible.

Democrats need to fall in line - there's a friggin' war on, and they better get used to it, because it's going to last the rest of their natural lives. I liked them a lot better when they was getting anthrax letters. That put the fear of God, or Republicans, in 'em.

(a selection for the local audience; no point in quoting Dick on the Premier of Newfoundland or the leader of the NDP or what the Auditor General is saying about Liberal corruption ...)

(edited to add the pic)

Thank you....

I would have never thought an opponent on this issue would be so quick to provide my point with such an excellent example and illustration.

"Bob Boudelang ain't got nothing on the RKBA crowd."

Well, ya got the first part right anyway :)

I'm always happy to show what a steaming pantload the RKBA cause is.

Most of us, were we to find ourselves magically transported to the 1770's, would would simply die of horror at the lack of indoor plumbing.

... what those forefathers might die of if they had to operate a VCR.

We have been taught for so long that violence isn't the answer to everything that we now believe it isn't the answer to anything.

Funny, an awful lot of you seemed to think it was the answer to something when your elected leaders got a fair bit violent with a bunch of Iraqis who hadn't asked them to answer any questions at all.

Perhaps a lot of you just prefer your violence on the TV screen these days, and don't really care who it's happening to as long as it isn't them.

And perhaps some others of you really do just think it's a good idea to have an actual question before answering it with violence ...

Rather like the case for the poll referred to in this thread, there just doesn't seem to be any question needing answering, with violence or otherwise, in the minds of a whole lot of people in the US, wouldncha say?

Maybe if they were persuaded that there was such a question, they could even then think of a way of answering it without hauling out the musket. Oops, we seem to have acquired a tyrannical government while we weren't looking. I wonder what we could do about that ...

.