A bipartianship petition and friendly hand extended to fellow Americans

[TravisT]

I disagree with the petition merely because it was obviously written from the left's point of view and is far from bi-partisan. Particularly on some of the highly debateable issues such as gay marriage, abortion, and the war in Iraq.

If you truely want to get bi-partisan and have underhanded comments made in the petition from the right you would talk about not having sexual activities in the oval office and to start working on being more patriotic by frowning upon those who burn the American flag.

 

[CPA]

12. We will not tolerate politicians who are corrupt and who are bought and paid for by the rich. We will go after any elected leader who puts him or herself ahead of the people. And we promise you we will go after the corrupt politicians on our side FIRST. If we fail to do this, we need you to call us on it. Simply because we are in power does not give us the right to turn our heads the other way when our party goes astray. Please perform this important duty as the loyal opposition.

You better get to work.

 

[CPA]

1. We will always respect you for your conservative beliefs. We will never, ever, call you "unpatriotic" simply because you disagree with us. In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us.

Start working on this too.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
As for the wording, when it was written you could go buy the absolute newest, latest and top of the line weapon available.

That is totally irrelevant. The destructive power of modern day weapons has increased exponentially since their time.

Originally posted by: Specop 007
The forefathers envisioned people being able to own whatever was available.

You don't know this.

Originally posted by: Specop 007
If you trust someone with a pistol, why not trust them with a tank? If you dont trust someone to the point you dont want them to own some type of weapon, then obviously you dont trust the person period regardless of the weapon they may wish to own.

Your logic makes no sense. I trust the majority of Americans to handle guns properly. What I worry about is those who can't. I would much rather have to deal with a wacko with a gun than a wacko with a tank.

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Specop 007
But leave my Rights, and as such my guns, the hell alone.

I support people being able to own handguns, however I don't support the idea of everyone being able to hold a rifle because a rifle is totally unnecessary for self-defense.

As to the Bill of Rights, you have to understand that the weaponry they had back then was much more primitive than what we have now. For example, I doubt they envisioned giving everyone the right to have a mounted gatling gun on top of their houses.

And they didnt have the internet either. Should we throw out free speech because a few whackjobs can put up a website showing how to build a bomb that millions will view?

So you would have no problem if every one of your neighbors mounted a gatling gun on their roof? Becauses that exactly what you just said.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: blackllotus
[

So you would have no problem if every one of your neighbors mounted a gatling gun on their roof? Becauses that exactly what you just said.

I wouldn't. Why would you?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: CPA
12. We will not tolerate politicians who are corrupt and who are bought and paid for by the rich. We will go after any elected leader who puts him or herself ahead of the people. And we promise you we will go after the corrupt politicians on our side FIRST. If we fail to do this, we need you to call us on it. Simply because we are in power does not give us the right to turn our heads the other way when our party goes astray. Please perform this important duty as the loyal opposition.

You better get to work.

But, but, but he is black and was not convicted of any wrong doing:disgust:
He resigned before Congress could impeach him. I would wonder why?

Originally posted by: CPA
1. We will always respect you for your conservative beliefs. We will never, ever, call you "unpatriotic" simply because you disagree with us. In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us.

Start working on this too.

But, but, but that happened in the past. A couple of misguided students egged on by hardcore Republicans who do not respect civil liberities.

Anything else that needs to be defended?

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: blackllotus
[

So you would have no problem if every one of your neighbors mounted a gatling gun on their roof? Becauses that exactly what you just said.

I wouldn't. Why would you?

Yes. Maybe you only have a few neighbors and maybe you can confirm that they are all good people, but I have quite a few and cannot. I have around 10-15 houses within sight and they are probably all within a quarter of a mile. It would be even worse if I lived in the middle of a city.

If you knew your neighbor was criminal, would you still feel perfectly fine with them mounting a gun on their rooftop?

 

[Vic]

Okay... first, the definition of "arms" is any non-ordnance (ordnance are explosive-based and/or multi-personnel weapons, like bombs, artillery, rockets, missiles, or grenades) weapon which an infantry soldier can carry into battle and use all on his own. So please everyone drop the "OMG nuclear weapons!!" bullsh!t. Or even gatling guns, as those require 2 people for proper operation. The Founding Fathers clearly intended pistols, rifles, shotguns, swords, knives, etc.

Second, being against the private ownership of firearms is about as un-democratic a position possible. You're basically saying you don't trust your fellow citizen with the right both to protect himself and to assist in the protection of the democratic state of your nation. I'm shocked you trust them to vote.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Specop 007
As for the wording, when it was written you could go buy the absolute newest, latest and top of the line weapon available.

That is totally irrelevant. The destructive power of modern day weapons has increased exponentially since their time.

Originally posted by: Specop 007
The forefathers envisioned people being able to own whatever was available.

You don't know this.

Originally posted by: Specop 007
If you trust someone with a pistol, why not trust them with a tank? If you dont trust someone to the point you dont want them to own some type of weapon, then obviously you dont trust the person period regardless of the weapon they may wish to own.

Your logic makes no sense. I trust the majority of Americans to handle guns properly. What I worry about is those who can't. I would much rather have to deal with a wacko with a gun than a wacko with a tank.

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Specop 007
But leave my Rights, and as such my guns, the hell alone.

I support people being able to own handguns, however I don't support the idea of everyone being able to hold a rifle because a rifle is totally unnecessary for self-defense.

As to the Bill of Rights, you have to understand that the weaponry they had back then was much more primitive than what we have now. For example, I doubt they envisioned giving everyone the right to have a mounted gatling gun on top of their houses.

And they didnt have the internet either. Should we throw out free speech because a few whackjobs can put up a website showing how to build a bomb that millions will view?

So you would have no problem if every one of your neighbors mounted a gatling gun on their roof? Becauses that exactly what you just said.

An outrageous example is a classic example of a weak argument.
There is a difference between bradnishing military style hardware in public and having a right to own a firearm.

You know it so why dont you try to argue these points instead of having to resort to some of the most outrageous example possible. You almost sound like miketheidiot who went even further and used a nuclear weapon as his example. :disgust:

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Genx87
An outrageous example is a classic example of a weak argument.
There is a difference between bradnishing military style hardware in public and having a right to own a firearm.

You know it so why dont you try to argue these points instead of having to resort to some of the most outrageous example possible. You almost sound like miketheidiot who went even further and used a nuclear weapon as his example. :disgust:

The point of my so-called "outrageous example" was to try to find where you people draw the line. What is the most destructive class of gun that you want to permit? Would criminals be excluded or would they also be allowed to walk around with an automatic? It may not seem scary to someone who lives in a lightly populated area, but it is more scary to people who live in more organized areas (I don't know where you live, but my comment still applies to others on this thread).

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Genx87
An outrageous example is a classic example of a weak argument.
There is a difference between bradnishing military style hardware in public and having a right to own a firearm.

You know it so why dont you try to argue these points instead of having to resort to some of the most outrageous example possible. You almost sound like miketheidiot who went even further and used a nuclear weapon as his example. :disgust:

The point of my so-called "outrageous example" was to try to find where you people draw the line. What is the most destructive class of gun that you want to permit? Would criminals be excluded or would they also be allowed to walk around with an automatic? It may not seem scary to someone who lives in a lightly populated area, but it is more scary to people who live in more organized areas (I don't know where you live, but my comment still applies to others on this thread).

What makes you think anybody who supports the 2nd amendment supports allowing criminals to carry guns? Your arguments are simply laced with conjecture and hyperbole. In other words you cant carry it on its merits alone.

I dont fear law abiding citizens who have guns or carry them, why should you? Do you shat yourself everytime you see a car? People die by magnitudes more from that than guns from law abiding citizens.

Taking away guns from law abiding citizens wont solve any of your apparent fears.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Specop 007
As for the wording, when it was written you could go buy the absolute newest, latest and top of the line weapon available.

That is totally irrelevant. The destructive power of modern day weapons has increased exponentially since their time.

It has everything to do with it. At the time of its writing you could own the biggest, heaviest cannon available. The forefathers had no problems with people owning the biggest weapon that was available.

Originally posted by: Specop 007
The forefathers envisioned people being able to own whatever was available.

You don't know this.

Uh, it states it pretty clearly in the 2nd.

Originally posted by: Specop 007
If you trust someone with a pistol, why not trust them with a tank? If you dont trust someone to the point you dont want them to own some type of weapon, then obviously you dont trust the person period regardless of the weapon they may wish to own.

Your logic makes no sense. I trust the majority of Americans to handle guns properly. What I worry about is those who can't. I would much rather have to deal with a wacko with a gun than a wacko with a tank.

It makes complete sense! If you think someone is going to hurt another person, does it matter if they use a tank, a firearm or a spork? Use logic and common sense man jesus. And truth be told, YOU dont have to deal with a wacko at all. You run and call the police and they deal with him.

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Specop 007
But leave my Rights, and as such my guns, the hell alone.

I support people being able to own handguns, however I don't support the idea of everyone being able to hold a rifle because a rifle is totally unnecessary for self-defense.

As to the Bill of Rights, you have to understand that the weaponry they had back then was much more primitive than what we have now. For example, I doubt they envisioned giving everyone the right to have a mounted gatling gun on top of their houses.

And they didnt have the internet either. Should we throw out free speech because a few whackjobs can put up a website showing how to build a bomb that millions will view?

So you would have no problem if every one of your neighbors mounted a gatling gun on their roof? Becauses that exactly what you just said.[/quote]

I would have no problemsx whatsoever.
Its law enforcement through economics. Mini guns will run you around $100k. Now I'm sorry to burst your bubble of gun bans, but someone with the disposable income to drop 100 large on a firearm aint gonna go haulin it into the office to shoot his co-workers. Someone with the disposable income to buy a tank (2-5 mil depending, and you STILL cant get DU armor or anything beyond tungsten carbine penetrators) isnt going to drop that kind of cash to go commit a crime. Especially when you consider 99% of the crimes done will be completed whether you use a pistol, a rifle, a tank or an airplane.

The people who want to commit crimes that would REQUIRE a tank wouldnt have the money to buy the damn thing anyways. Wonder why you never hear of a crime being committed with a legally purchased fully automatic weapon? Those along START at $5,000 and run up to 15-20k for the handheld stuff. If you can afford $15k for a gun, you dont buy it to go rob the local bank or gun down the homies on the corner.

I know it sounds a bit warped, but truly it is law enforcement through economics.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: blackllotus
[

So you would have no problem if every one of your neighbors mounted a gatling gun on their roof? Becauses that exactly what you just said.

I wouldn't. Why would you?

Yes. Maybe you only have a few neighbors and maybe you can confirm that they are all good people, but I have quite a few and cannot. I have around 10-15 houses within sight and they are probably all within a quarter of a mile. It would be even worse if I lived in the middle of a city.

If you knew your neighbor was criminal, would you still feel perfectly fine with them mounting a gun on their rooftop?

Criminals cant own firearms, so your point is invalid.

UNless your implying our laws are too soft on criminals, in which case I agree. But you dont get that warm fuzzy hard on from making tough laws do you, you get that warm fuzzy hard on by banning inanimate objects.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Genx87
What makes you think anybody who supports the 2nd amendment supports allowing criminals to carry guns? Your arguments are simply laced with conjecture and hyperbole. In other words you cant carry it on its merits alone.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The second amendment does exclude past criminals.

Originally posted by: Genx87
Taking away guns from law abiding citizens wont solve any of your apparent fears.

I never advocated doing that.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: blackllotus
[

So you would have no problem if every one of your neighbors mounted a gatling gun on their roof? Becauses that exactly what you just said.

I wouldn't. Why would you?

No but if I saw a Texan with a Rifle going up the stairs of a tower I'd get extremely nervous.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Criminals cant own firearms, so your point is invalid.

That was a rather stupid mistake on my part.

Originally posted by: Specop 007
UNless your implying our laws are too soft on criminals, in which case I agree.

It depends on the crime.

Originally posted by: Specop 007
But you dont get that warm fuzzy hard on from making tough laws do you, you get that warm fuzzy hard on by banning inanimate objects.

Maybe you get your hard ons from tough laws, but I get mine from women.

Btw, like I said earlier, I fully support allowing people to own handguns. I just don't think the average joe should be allowed to buy a rifle.

 

[fskimospy]

Of course the government can regulate what sort of guns you own. Just like the first amendment.. we have freedom of speech, but it is not an absolute freedom. (cue the obligatory fire in a movie theater quote). Same deal with guns.

Does owning a gun make you safer? Probably not. (there are a lot of studies that seem to suggest that you are more likely to be injured or killed in a burglary if you own a gun then if you don't). Would I ever own a gun? Helllll no.

Regardless of my opinions though, the bill of rights is pretty clear that it's people's right to own them. If you want to complain about how Bush is shredding the bill of rights with all of this gestapo crap that he's pulling... then you need to respect it yourselves.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh, and I'd be careful about how much harsher you want to make criminal penalties in this country. Our incarceration rate just recently passed that of Soviet Russia... and while I'm no expert on crime control, this is probably a club we don't want to belong to.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

The people who want to commit crimes that would REQUIRE a tank wouldnt have the money to buy the damn thing anyways. Wonder why you never hear of a crime being committed with a legally purchased fully automatic weapon? Those along START at $5,000 and run up to 15-20k for the handheld stuff. If you can afford $15k for a gun, you dont buy it to go rob the local bank or gun down the homies on the corner.

I'd just love to own one of those .50 caliber sniper rifles they have out now. I was just out last week-end sighting in my .300 Win Mag for deer season and spent half the day messing around shooting at 500 and 800 yard targets. I'd just love to try some 1500 to 2000 yard target and see if I could actually hit anything at that range.

But they cost so much to buy and shoot and they're not legal to hunt with soI just can't justify spending that much money, but if money were no object, I'd have several.

 

[Enig101]

I think it's sort of ridiculous to lump the Bill of Rights together. It is quite easy to perceive that the Right to Bear Arms is outdated. That does not mean that other parts of the Bill of Rights are invalid. I don't see why it has to be "all or nothing". The Bill of Rights is just a set of amendments, no?

As for this thread, I am moderate/liberal and I can clearly see the original post is provocative.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Maybe you get your hard ons from tough laws, but I get mine from women.

Btw, like I said earlier, I fully support allowing people to own handguns. I just don't think the average joe should be allowed to buy a rifle.

If you don't like tough laws then why do you have such a hard on for rifles? I currently own 17 rifels, 8 shotguns and 5 handguns and I haven't shot anybody yet.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Enig101
I think it's sort of ridiculous to lump the Bill of Rights together. It is quite easy to perceive that the Right to Bear Arms is outdated. That does not mean that other parts of the Bill of Rights are invalid. I don't see why it has to be "all or nothing". The Bill of Rights is just a set of amendments, no?

As for this thread, I am moderate/liberal and I can clearly see the original post is provocative.

The bill of rights puts restrictions on what our govt can do, tt sets the boundaries. So no, the right to bear arms is not outdated. I'd say with the shift to big govt it is needed now more than ever.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Steeplerot


BTW MM did not write this you twit.

The A Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives Petition to Conservatives and Republicans was created by and written by Michael Moore (petition@michaelmoore.com)

You were saying?

See second post I made, this is a plagerazation and MM never gave credit.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Criminals cant own firearms, so your point is invalid.

That was a rather stupid mistake on my part.

Originally posted by: Specop 007
UNless your implying our laws are too soft on criminals, in which case I agree.

It depends on the crime.

Originally posted by: Specop 007
But you dont get that warm fuzzy hard on from making tough laws do you, you get that warm fuzzy hard on by banning inanimate objects.

Maybe you get your hard ons from tough laws, but I get mine from women.

Btw, like I said earlier, I fully support allowing people to own handguns. I just don't think the average joe should be allowed to buy a rifle.

So what are you going to tell the hunters? No more hunting?

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Oh, and I'd be careful about how much harsher you want to make criminal penalties in this country. Our incarceration rate just recently passed that of Soviet Russia... and while I'm no expert on crime control, this is probably a club we don't want to belong to.

Thank you War on Drugs. :disgust: