.

Who's really concerned about constitutional rights

woodguruwoodguru Member Posts: 2,850
The topic concerning "what if they showed up on your door to take your guns would you fight" was really interesting on a couple of fronts. There are a lot of gun oriented people that are pretty clueless about the constitution and what it means to talk about constitutional rights.<br>
As a qualifier here I am a gun lovin' nut and have been all my life, I have hunted, competed in benchrest, trap, skeet, pistol, airgun, used firearms to save my life, and can't imagine not having them. I have had a top secret clearance for nuclear missile systems related analysis and intelligence, and am privy to some generally mind blowing information on how the government operates and spends ludicrously wasteful amounts of money.
<br>
We can look at a what if scenario that should be an eye opener as far as the point I am making here. Let's look at the recent parade or protest where guns were being openly worn and displayed, signs were waved that said "try to take my gun....". This was a peaceful demonstration, right?<br>
<br>
Now let's say Obama's administration just felt threatened by the guns, the message, whatever. He uses illegally gotten wire tapped and computer monitoring information on who is staying with what organizers and facilitators that offer a place to stay for guys out of town. The facilitators are being watched and listened to and a systematic and well executed set of raids is done in the wee hours of the morning. Guys are kicked around and made to wait while posters, paper, materials for making posters, computers, and undoubtedly guns are confiscated. The only arrests that are made are related to resistance because there really is no reason to be harassing a group of peaceful protesters.<br>
<br>
I can assure you that liberals, environmentalists, conservatives, just about every label running is going to be deeply outraged that your rights as citizens were violated so rudely. Open minded and politically aware people are sensitive to a civil rights violation no matter who it is perpetrated against. It would be a very small fringe of gun opposed psychos that would have no sympathy on the grounds that it happened to gun freaks so who the hell cares.<br>
<br>
That makes a perfect example because in Bush's last days during the preliminary election campaigns his administration felt threatened by peaceful protesters that had a message of corruption and disregard for the constitution that had run rampant during two terms. In order to disrupt any legally and well organized presence that might be visible publicly illegal wire tapping and computer monitoring was done so as to target the organizers and facilitators of these protests. Houses where forty or more out of town protesters were targeted in a well orchestrated SWAT type series of early morning raids. Signs, paper, materials for making signs, and computers were confiscated. There were no issues with firearms or materials used to make bombs because these were a very peaceful type of people that is very much opposed to violence.<br>
<br>
When the wiretapping issue was running it's course what happened? Bush had already instituted the hugest assault on due process and the checks and balances required to keep innocent people safe. The heat was on his getting the approval after the fact, he'd already done the damage. People who think they are extreme patriots because they support an administration and it's wars are out to lunch when weighing in on extreme violations of civil rights. I heard people saying, "why does it matter if you don't have anything to hide? Every issue that came up concerning constitutional rights violations was blown off because it doesn't concern the conservative gun rights concerned GOP support network. The GOP on the other hand has the ability and will to fire up this same group on exactly the same issues that they pooh pooh and is ignored when they do it.<br>
<br>
Obama's administration would not, could not survive the exact same violation that we would not tolerate if any group of peaceful protesters were violated the way the anti Bush protesters were just a couple of years ago.<br>
<br>
If gun sensitive and concerned people as a group became more aware and understanding of how government works there would be a different perspective possible. It is easy to see if we use newly available government transparency that for the first time our elected officials can be held accountable for their voting record and how they want to frivolously spend taxpayer's money. The GOP has thrived on hidden voter records and non disclosed spending bills. There are bad democrats and republicans that vote in favor of big business interests at the taxpayer's expense, good government bad government is not a partisan defined difference. There are good democrats that fight for our gun rights as well as any other sensible civil and constitutional laws. The most important thing that will come with a better awareness is responding to which elected officials ignore the documented will of their people they represent. Gun rights interested people would be appalled at how the politicians that are the most aggressive in firing them up with out of context lies actually vote and support big money interests and not what is best for the people. We will have a much stronger influence on good government when we realize that there are no sides to who supports or opposes what is best for the people. I will suport any republican or democrat that has a proven record of taking the right positions on critical issues and opposes big money oriented giveaways.<br>
<br>
Being patriotic and concerned about the constitution is great as long as those who profess the strongest hold on those values are intelligent enough to know when they are being sold a reversely represented bill of goods. Let's watch all of our rights, not just the ones that affect guns, abortion, and gay rights. There's a bigger set of issues that are affecting our country's financial health and those fighting the blown out of proportion gun rights are unwittingly supporting big business waste and fraud.<br>
<br>
The best focus on this thread is answered by whether there is any difference between what Bush did disrupting protester rights or if this administration would be doing anything different if they were to disrupt a gun rights protest or demonstration. It's just meant to make you think about what's right, not inflame anyone. It's a pretty simple correlation and there are no differences between the two.

Comments

  • Rack OpsRack Ops Member Posts: 18,593 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I think I can say that most of the folks on the forum who aren't blatant GOP hacks were at least somewhat disturbed by Bush's antics....but the same conduct by Obama would have been met with much more resistance, I think.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Thanks for the endless dissertation over the evils of bush and the ever-so-gentle nudgings towards the present administration.

    However, I think you will find that intelligent people FULLY understand that politicians are slimebags..corrupted beyond belief.

    quote:There are a lot of gun oriented people that are pretty clueless about the constitution and what it means to talk about constitutional rights I find this statement fascinating.
    I wonder what YOUR definition of `Shall Not Be Infringed' is ? Just for kicks and grins ?
    As for the rest of your rather lengthy treatise ;
    We all pick the hill on which we will die.
    Thank you for attempting to have that hill be a molehill.one carefully calculated to bring little support from the general public.OR other gun owners.
    But no, thank you kindly.
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    I find it more effective and certainly more apt to get me to read, if one point, or one issue at a time, is clearly and simply laid out, or presented.

    That aside, you will find that many here are fully aware of and are very focused on the plethora of anti-constitution actions that have been taken and which continue to be taken, by government.

    This being a 'gun forum', gun issues are generally central.

    It is also without doubt, that Amendment II, embodying 'Liberty's Teeth', is paramount in importance. The loss of this fundamental right to keep and bear arms, means the loss of any viable ability to protect the remainder of our individual liberty.

    Think about that as you mull over your next novel.

    Speaking for myself, left and right, republican and democrat, both are two peas in the same globalist-collectivist pod.

    Collectivism vs. individualism is where the rubber meets the road, regardless of the position on the political spectrum which that collectivism comes from.
  • BGHillbillyBGHillbilly Member Posts: 1,927 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by lt496
    I find it more effective and certainly more apt to get me to read, if one point, or one issue at a time, is clearly and simply laid out, or presented.

    That aside, you will find that many here are fully aware of and are very focused on the plethora of anti-constitution actions that have been taken and which continue to be taken, by government.

    This being a 'gun forum', gun issues are generally central.

    It is also without doubt, that Amendment II, embodying 'Liberty's Teeth', is paramount in importance. The loss of this fundamental right to keep and bear arms, means the loss of any viable ability to protect the remainder of our individual liberty.

    Think about that as you mull over your next novel.

    Speaking for myself, left and right, republican and democrat, both are two peas in the same globalist-collectivist pod.

    Collectivism vs. individualism is where the rubber meets the road, regardless of the position on the political spectrum which that collectivism comes from.


    +1
  • quickmajikquickmajik Member Posts: 16,324
    edited November -1
    The best focus on this thread is answered by whether there is any difference between what Bush did disrupting protester rights or if this administration would be doing anything different if they were to disrupt a gun rights protest or demonstration. It's just meant to make you think about what's right, not inflame anyone. It's a pretty simple correlation and there are no differences between the two.


    No sir, there is no difference at all.. nor does one act give justification for another. Though tyrants may see thing differently.

    Things like this are the reason for the type of small armed protests, and general outrage that you've seen. Obama represents the seeds that clinton, Bush and all the past stateists have planted comming into fruition.

    The reason for this anger is if the government will infringe the rights of certian people agressively, or all of us passively, when we are unarmed,(either by force or generations of bans,) or the constitution debased things will get much worse for all quickly.
  • woodguruwoodguru Member Posts: 2,850
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by lt496
    I find it more effective and certainly more apt to get me to read, if one point, or one issue at a time, is clearly and simply laid out, or presented.

    That aside, you will find that many here are fully aware of and are very focused on the plethora of anti-constitution actions that have been taken and which continue to be taken, by government.

    This being a 'gun forum', gun issues are generally central.

    It is also without doubt, that Amendment II, embodying 'Liberty's Teeth', is paramount in importance. The loss of this fundamental right to keep and bear arms, means the loss of any viable ability to protect the remainder of our individual liberty.

    Think about that as you mull over your next novel.

    Speaking for myself, left and right, republican and democrat, both are two peas in the same globalist-collectivist pod.

    Collectivism vs. individualism is where the rubber meets the road, regardless of the position on the political spectrum which that collectivism comes from.




    There is a lot to be said for the two peas in a pod thing, there are bad democrats and bad republicans, bad as defined by whether their allegiance is served for the people they are elected by or the wasteful and excessive support of big business. I am ecouraged by the good republicans and democrats that do fight their own party for what is right. They do exist and it is only by people learning to think about supporting good and opposing the bad that we can correctly influence and be part of a good government. It starts with a new visibilty that is spotlighting bad representation in ways that we are slowly realizing as we are aware of obstructionism and blind opposition to the other party.<br>
    <br>
    Sorry about the book, I'll refrain from a repeat.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    quote:I am ecouraged by the good republicans and democrats that do fight their own party for what is right. They do exist
    Perhaps it would serve you well to actually study the politicians a bit more.
    You will find that politicians vote the 'right way' on THIS issue...then turn around and vote for bigger Beast and littler you the next time.
    It is called a 'tag team', for your information.
    Naturally, were the politicians to vote against the people EVERY time..they would not be able to continue their process of destruction more then one term...unless elected in Mass. or Calif.


    NONE..save for Ron Paul...use the Constitution as their guideline.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Just gathering a bit of info..it might be instructive to read down thru this thread a bit....Sometimes the sweet voice of reason is REALLY the hissing lips of a viper...
    http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=408320

    Or this ;
    http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=408364
  • one2hutnone2hutn Member Posts: 261 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    To answer the question-ME!
  • steveaustinsteveaustin Member Posts: 852 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    "who's really concerned about constitutional rights"
    me.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    'Woodsguru' is a democraticsocialist shill.
    'Constitutional' is a term used by them to hammer Americans with...using THEIR version of it, of course.

    Much as one should ALWAYS question people professing their 'faith' in a deity...be VERY sure that 'deity' is the same one you worship...one should ALWAYS be sure the words used match YOUR comprehension of them.

    For instance, again..."Shall Not Be Infringed" means NO GOVERNMENTAL INTERFERENCE in the flow of weapons to citizens.....
    Jus' saying, here...
  • Explorer1Explorer1 Member Posts: 45 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    "who's really concerned about constitutional rights"

    Add me to the list!

    however, let us not miss the FACT, the Constitution PROVIDES NO rights, it acknowledges GOD Given Rights.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    quote:however, let us not miss the FACT, the Constitution PROVIDES NO rights, it acknowledges GOD Given Rights.
    The 'gotcha' here ?

    Many, if not MOST of the gun grabbers do not believe in a deity. Many of the self professed agnostics/atheists that own guns claim there IS no God.

    Therefore...MAN is 'god' in THEIR lives...Rights spring from a mans' hand..and what Man grants, man can take away.
  • losttraillosttrail Member Posts: 185 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I see woodguru presented us with yet another novella of "Bush bad".

    While I will agree that the differences between Republicans and Democrats leading America towards global collectivism can be equated to travelling from Berlin to Munich on the autobahn in a Ford pickup (Republicans) and a Bugatti Veyron (Democrats), I wish that woodguru would actually educate himself more on topics before swallowing half his leg.

    Marxist Obama has told us that he is not going to take actions against gun owners. I believe him.

    In so far as he will not actively seek legislation within our own government, to restrict gun owners rights.

    However, Marxist Obama is anti-American and his voiced support of anti-American, global collectivist policies is known by anyone willing to be even mildly honest.

    Marxist Obama will sign accords, proclamations, treaties with the EU, the UN, Russia, China, whoever. These countries/organizations already prevent their subjects from enjoying many of the 'freedoms' we enjoy.

    By signing on to these treaties, Marxist Obama will subject America to rule by these foreign entities, circumvent the Constitution, and thus remove our rights as American citizens (subjects).

    The writing is on the wall and I would think that such a well-versed brainiac as woodguru, would be able to see the poison in the trough of Marxist Obama.
  • woodguruwoodguru Member Posts: 2,850
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    Thanks for the endless dissertation over the evils of bush and the ever-so-gentle nudgings towards the present administration.

    However, I think you will find that intelligent people FULLY understand that politicians are slimebags..corrupted beyond belief.

    quote:There are a lot of gun oriented people that are pretty clueless about the constitution and what it means to talk about constitutional rights I find this statement fascinating.
    I wonder what YOUR definition of `Shall Not Be Infringed' is ? Just for kicks and grins ?
    As for the rest of your rather lengthy treatise ;
    We all pick the hill on which we will die.
    Thank you for attempting to have that hill be a molehill.one carefully calculated to bring little support from the general public.OR other gun owners.
    But no, thank you kindly.



    My definition of "shall not be infringed upon" was that I was pretty freaked out when it came out that Bush had already initiated a wholesale nation wide wiretapping and electronic surveillance. I basically saw those who were aware and couldn't believe those who weren't concerned because they had already signed onto the roles of patriotism as defined by those who "support our troops" which was another way to say they let the government have an open checkbook for the war.

    I hear a lot of gum flapping by a lot of people who profess to hold to our constitution dearly. Those same people, many of them anyway were asleep at the wheel when illegal wiretaps were found to be in effect, after the fact I'll add for those who missed my point. Illegal arrests and detainments were already resulting from these actions that had been taking place. The Bush administration being the masters of spin and public support that they are had to merely couch these illegal actions in the guise of "the patriot act" and we get the most self professed patriots in the country supporting these noble intents of ferreting out terrorism wherever it might be illegally found.

    Nixon was going to be impeached and had to hand in his resignation for wiretapping an office building. Bush illegally wiretaps and uses electronic surveillance on computer information of our entire population indescriminately, and goes one step further and arrests and detains people without judicial oversight as spelled out in the constitution as pertains to out personal rights and protections from just such gestapo tactics.

    Where were all of the patriots who hold our constitutional protections so dearly? They were showing their patriotism by supporting the patriot act by allowing Bush to usurp our protections in the name of protecting us from terrorism. I'm afraid the arrest and detainment thing hit a little too close to home with me when I was doing nothing illegal but working on my personal rights to say and write what I want about government waste and fraud. When an honest citizen has to worry about the line between being a threat to national security and being a threat to the establishment's greed and corruption being the same thing in terms of rights being endangered I'm a bit offended by those who were asleep and missed the threat entirely. Rather than being attacked I'd like to hear that at least now after the fact that anyone wanting to talk about politics at least has the smarts to acknowledge that we severely messed up letting Bush get away with that.

    At the time I was asking my patriotic (sounds a lot like idiotic to me) friends what they thought of an entire huge scale wiretapping operation going into effect illegally, all of the morons I knew could just say foolish things like, "if you don't have anything to worry about what difference does it make"? That gentlemen is not the answer of a true patriot it is the unadulterated response of a true idiot.

    I can respect someone that can now admit that there were some pretty grievious breaches of constitutional rights going on during those two terms. It's not to beat up on Bush and say I'm right, it's because forward progress is made by looking closely, very closely so as to be able to keep it from happening again.

    I may have voted for this president but I will be part of the mob that impeaches him if he takes any single bad step Bush did, just as I would have been part of the support to impeach Bush.

    Obama's powder keg is what he does with the impending patriot act term end date. Ball's in his court as to extend it and perpetuate a monster constitutional breach, or put it down and try to restore our rights. He will be beat up no matter which way he goes. Billions of dollars were invested in the infrastructure of setting up the monstrous information network within communications companies so it isn't an easy thing to derail. The government has added 26,000 people working in key positions in communications companies as paid deputies probably so that they can tie their hands to talking about what the surveillance systems are and can do. We don't seem to get much information except that we pretty much seem to have an awareness that this is real big brother in action.
  • kyplumberkyplumber Member Posts: 11,111
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Explorer1
    "who's really concerned about constitutional rights"

    Add me to the list!

    however, let us not miss the FACT, the Constitution PROVIDES NO rights, it acknowledges GOD Given Rights.


    a beacon of light shines, and I see that it clearly has shined on you.

    Congratulations you ?sir? are one of a very select few people who "get it"
  • losttraillosttrail Member Posts: 185 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by woodguru
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    Thanks for the endless dissertation over the evils of bush and the ever-so-gentle nudgings towards the present administration.

    However, I think you will find that intelligent people FULLY understand that politicians are slimebags..corrupted beyond belief.

    quote:There are a lot of gun oriented people that are pretty clueless about the constitution and what it means to talk about constitutional rights I find this statement fascinating.
    I wonder what YOUR definition of `Shall Not Be Infringed' is ? Just for kicks and grins ?
    As for the rest of your rather lengthy treatise ;
    We all pick the hill on which we will die.
    Thank you for attempting to have that hill be a molehill.one carefully calculated to bring little support from the general public.OR other gun owners.
    But no, thank you kindly.



    My definition of "shall not be infringed upon" was that I was pretty freaked out when it came out that Bush had already initiated a wholesale nation wide wiretapping and electronic surveillance. I basically saw those who were aware and couldn't believe those who weren't concerned because they had already signed onto the roles of patriotism as defined by those who "support our troops" which was another way to say they let the government have an open checkbook for the war.

    I hear a lot of gum flapping by a lot of people who profess to hold to our constitution dearly. Those same people, many of them anyway were asleep at the wheel when illegal wiretaps were found to be in effect, after the fact I'll add for those who missed my point. Illegal arrests and detainments were already resulting from these actions that had been taking place. The Bush administration being the masters of spin and public support that they are had to merely couch these illegal actions in the guise of "the patriot act" and we get the most self professed patriots in the country supporting these noble intents of ferreting out terrorism wherever it might be illegally found.

    Nixon was going to be impeached and had to hand in his resignation for wiretapping an office building. Bush illegally wiretaps and uses electronic surveillance on computer information of our entire population indescriminately, and goes one step further and arrests and detains people without judicial oversight as spelled out in the constitution as pertains to out personal rights and protections from just such gestapo tactics.

    Where were all of the patriots who hold our constitutional protections so dearly? They were showing their patriotism by supporting the patriot act by allowing Bush to usurp our protections in the name of protecting us from terrorism. I'm afraid the arrest and detainment thing hit a little too close to home with me when I was doing nothing illegal but working on my personal rights to say and write what I want about government waste and fraud. When an honest citizen has to worry about the line between being a threat to national security and being a threat to the establishment's greed and corruption being the same thing in terms of rights being endangered I'm a bit offended by those who were asleep and missed the threat entirely. Rather than being attacked I'd like to hear that at least now after the fact that anyone wanting to talk about politics at least has the smarts to acknowledge that we severely messed up letting Bush get away with that.

    At the time I was asking my patriotic (sounds a lot like idiotic to me) friends what they thought of an entire huge scale wiretapping operation going into effect illegally, all of the morons I knew could just say foolish things like, "if you don't have anything to worry about what difference does it make"? That gentlemen is not the answer of a true patriot it is the unadulterated response of a true idiot.

    I can respect someone that can now admit that there were some pretty grievious breaches of constitutional rights going on during those two terms. It's not to beat up on Bush and say I'm right, it's because forward progress is made by looking closely, very closely so as to be able to keep it from happening again.

    I may have voted for this president but I will be part of the mob that impeaches him if he takes any single bad step Bush did, just as I would have been part of the support to impeach Bush.

    Obama's powder keg is what he does with the impending patriot act term end date. Ball's in his court as to extend it and perpetuate a monster constitutional breach, or put it down and try to restore our rights. He will be beat up no matter which way he goes. Billions of dollars were invested in the infrastructure of setting up the monstrous information network within communications companies so it isn't an easy thing to derail. The government has added 26,000 people working in key positions in communications companies as paid deputies probably so that they can tie their hands to talking about what the surveillance systems are and can do. We don't seem to get much information except that we pretty much seem to have an awareness that this is real big brother in action.


    Yet another example of "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with bullsh_t" from woodguru.

    The question put to you, woodguru, was quite simple:

    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    I wonder what YOUR definition of `Shall Not Be Infringed' is ? Just for kicks and grins ?

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the term "Shall not be infringed" is only contained in the Second Amenment. Yet we get another long winded, rambling essay on how 'freaked out' you were over the Patriot Act.

    While I was not and am not at all comfortable about the Patriot Act, and did write my elected representatives in opposition to it, I can understand your being 'freaked out' due to the fact that you evidently are new to this planet and think that Bush was a dictator and had the power to enact any and every law he could think up.

    Maybe if you took the time to enroll in an American citizenship class, such as is required of immigrants to this country, you would learn that Bush merely (still a bad thing IMO) signed this statute into law AFTER it was voted on and passed in both the house and senate.

    In 2001 the house vote was 357 Yea, 66 Nay, 9 non-voting, while the seante voted 98 Yea, 1 Nay, 1 non-voting.

    In 2006 the house votes were 280 Yea, 138 Nay, 14NV while the senate was 89 Yea, 10 Nay, 1 NV.

    To be honest, I was 'freaked out' to learn that in 2001 there were 357 Republican members in the house and 98 Republican senators, because obviously in your world, no good, upstanding Democrats would have voted for such a bill.

    But then again, Bush just enacted the Patriot Act on his own. Sorry, I forgot.

    Bush was not a conservative, not a Constitutionalist to be sure. But he was not even in the same anti-american league as Marxist Obama. Just wait and see.

    Now, can we get your answer to Highball's question?
  • woodguruwoodguru Member Posts: 2,850
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by losttrail
    quote:Originally posted by woodguru
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    Thanks for the endless dissertation over the evils of bush and the ever-so-gentle nudgings towards the present administration.

    However, I think you will find that intelligent people FULLY understand that politicians are slimebags..corrupted beyond belief.

    quote:There are a lot of gun oriented people that are pretty clueless about the constitution and what it means to talk about constitutional rights I find this statement fascinating.
    I wonder what YOUR definition of `Shall Not Be Infringed' is ? Just for kicks and grins ?
    As for the rest of your rather lengthy treatise ;
    We all pick the hill on which we will die.
    Thank you for attempting to have that hill be a molehill.one carefully calculated to bring little support from the general public.OR other gun owners.
    But no, thank you kindly.



    My definition of "shall not be infringed upon" was that I was pretty freaked out when it came out that Bush had already initiated a wholesale nation wide wiretapping and electronic surveillance. I basically saw those who were aware and couldn't believe those who weren't concerned because they had already signed onto the roles of patriotism as defined by those who "support our troops" which was another way to say they let the government have an open checkbook for the war.

    I hear a lot of gum flapping by a lot of people who profess to hold to our constitution dearly. Those same people, many of them anyway were asleep at the wheel when illegal wiretaps were found to be in effect, after the fact I'll add for those who missed my point. Illegal arrests and detainments were already resulting from these actions that had been taking place. The Bush administration being the masters of spin and public support that they are had to merely couch these illegal actions in the guise of "the patriot act" and we get the most self professed patriots in the country supporting these noble intents of ferreting out terrorism wherever it might be illegally found.

    Nixon was going to be impeached and had to hand in his resignation for wiretapping an office building. Bush illegally wiretaps and uses electronic surveillance on computer information of our entire population indescriminately, and goes one step further and arrests and detains people without judicial oversight as spelled out in the constitution as pertains to out personal rights and protections from just such gestapo tactics.

    Where were all of the patriots who hold our constitutional protections so dearly? They were showing their patriotism by supporting the patriot act by allowing Bush to usurp our protections in the name of protecting us from terrorism. I'm afraid the arrest and detainment thing hit a little too close to home with me when I was doing nothing illegal but working on my personal rights to say and write what I want about government waste and fraud. When an honest citizen has to worry about the line between being a threat to national security and being a threat to the establishment's greed and corruption being the same thing in terms of rights being endangered I'm a bit offended by those who were asleep and missed the threat entirely. Rather than being attacked I'd like to hear that at least now after the fact that anyone wanting to talk about politics at least has the smarts to acknowledge that we severely messed up letting Bush get away with that.

    At the time I was asking my patriotic (sounds a lot like idiotic to me) friends what they thought of an entire huge scale wiretapping operation going into effect illegally, all of the morons I knew could just say foolish things like, "if you don't have anything to worry about what difference does it make"? That gentlemen is not the answer of a true patriot it is the unadulterated response of a true idiot.

    I can respect someone that can now admit that there were some pretty grievious breaches of constitutional rights going on during those two terms. It's not to beat up on Bush and say I'm right, it's because forward progress is made by looking closely, very closely so as to be able to keep it from happening again.

    I may have voted for this president but I will be part of the mob that impeaches him if he takes any single bad step Bush did, just as I would have been part of the support to impeach Bush.

    Obama's powder keg is what he does with the impending patriot act term end date. Ball's in his court as to extend it and perpetuate a monster constitutional breach, or put it down and try to restore our rights. He will be beat up no matter which way he goes. Billions of dollars were invested in the infrastructure of setting up the monstrous information network within communications companies so it isn't an easy thing to derail. The government has added 26,000 people working in key positions in communications companies as paid deputies probably so that they can tie their hands to talking about what the surveillance systems are and can do. We don't seem to get much information except that we pretty much seem to have an awareness that this is real big brother in action.


    Yet another example of "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with bullsh_t" from woodguru.

    The question put to you, woodguru, was quite simple:

    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    I wonder what YOUR definition of `Shall Not Be Infringed' is ? Just for kicks and grins ?

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the term "Shall not be infringed" is only contained in the Second Amenment. Yet we get another long winded, rambling essay on how 'freaked out' you were over the Patriot Act.

    While I was not and am not at all comfortable about the Patriot Act, and did write my elected representatives in opposition to it, I can understand your being 'freaked out' due to the fact that you evidently are new to this planet and think that Bush was a dictator and had the power to enact any and every law he could think up.

    Maybe if you took the time to enroll in an American citizenship class, such as is required of immigrants to this country, you would learn that Bush merely (still a bad thing IMO) signed this statute into law AFTER it was voted on and passed in both the house and senate.

    In 2001 the house vote was 357 Yea, 66 Nay, 9 non-voting, while the seante voted 98 Yea, 1 Nay, 1 non-voting.

    In 2006 the house votes were 280 Yea, 138 Nay, 14NV while the senate was 89 Yea, 10 Nay, 1 NV.

    To be honest, I was 'freaked out' to learn that in 2001 there were 357 Republican members in the house and 98 Republican senators, because obviously in your world, no good, upstanding Democrats would have voted for such a bill.

    But then again, Bush just enacted the Patriot Act on his own. Sorry, I forgot.

    Bush was not a conservative, not a Constitutionalist to be sure. But he was not even in the same anti-american league as Marxist Obama. Just wait and see.

    Now, can we get your answer to Highball's question?


    What do you want you bufoon? I gave you one of the most on point and clearly stated examples of our constitutional rights and protections being infringed on, no wait a minute that wasn't an infringement it was a case of the constitution being stomped on with gestapo stormtrooper's boots.

    You friggin joker, the patriot act was passed after the fact by a senate that was too far past not impeaching on a multiple of counts to choose impeachment over after the fact fixes to the breaches of constitutional protections. I don't care what you want to call it do you think it was right to choose after the fact legislation that made it okay after the fact?

    Call it legal after the fact what was your patriotic opinion of a breach having been perpetrated in the first place or were you even registering the breach at the time?
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    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.

    There, you tool, I spelled it out to you. Answer the question or shut your collectivist pie-hole.

    Good Lord! One would think that a real 'smart guy' could focus on the simple statement of "shall not be infringed", contained in Amendment II and give a simple and direct answer, but since this particular tool is always attempting to camouflage himself as something other than what he really is.....
  • pickenuppickenup Member, Moderator Posts: 22,397 ******
    edited November -1
    KNOCK OFF THE NAME CALLING.
    ALL of ya.
  • losttraillosttrail Member Posts: 185 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by woodguru
    quote:Originally posted by losttrail
    quote:Originally posted by woodguru
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    Thanks for the endless dissertation over the evils of bush and the ever-so-gentle nudgings towards the present administration.

    However, I think you will find that intelligent people FULLY understand that politicians are slimebags..corrupted beyond belief.

    quote:There are a lot of gun oriented people that are pretty clueless about the constitution and what it means to talk about constitutional rights I find this statement fascinating.
    I wonder what YOUR definition of `Shall Not Be Infringed' is ? Just for kicks and grins ?
    As for the rest of your rather lengthy treatise ;
    We all pick the hill on which we will die.
    Thank you for attempting to have that hill be a molehill.one carefully calculated to bring little support from the general public.OR other gun owners.
    But no, thank you kindly.



    My definition of "shall not be infringed upon" was that I was pretty freaked out when it came out that Bush had already initiated a wholesale nation wide wiretapping and electronic surveillance. I basically saw those who were aware and couldn't believe those who weren't concerned because they had already signed onto the roles of patriotism as defined by those who "support our troops" which was another way to say they let the government have an open checkbook for the war.

    I hear a lot of gum flapping by a lot of people who profess to hold to our constitution dearly. Those same people, many of them anyway were asleep at the wheel when illegal wiretaps were found to be in effect, after the fact I'll add for those who missed my point. Illegal arrests and detainments were already resulting from these actions that had been taking place. The Bush administration being the masters of spin and public support that they are had to merely couch these illegal actions in the guise of "the patriot act" and we get the most self professed patriots in the country supporting these noble intents of ferreting out terrorism wherever it might be illegally found.

    Nixon was going to be impeached and had to hand in his resignation for wiretapping an office building. Bush illegally wiretaps and uses electronic surveillance on computer information of our entire population indescriminately, and goes one step further and arrests and detains people without judicial oversight as spelled out in the constitution as pertains to out personal rights and protections from just such gestapo tactics.

    Where were all of the patriots who hold our constitutional protections so dearly? They were showing their patriotism by supporting the patriot act by allowing Bush to usurp our protections in the name of protecting us from terrorism. I'm afraid the arrest and detainment thing hit a little too close to home with me when I was doing nothing illegal but working on my personal rights to say and write what I want about government waste and fraud. When an honest citizen has to worry about the line between being a threat to national security and being a threat to the establishment's greed and corruption being the same thing in terms of rights being endangered I'm a bit offended by those who were asleep and missed the threat entirely. Rather than being attacked I'd like to hear that at least now after the fact that anyone wanting to talk about politics at least has the smarts to acknowledge that we severely messed up letting Bush get away with that.

    At the time I was asking my patriotic (sounds a lot like idiotic to me) friends what they thought of an entire huge scale wiretapping operation going into effect illegally, all of the morons I knew could just say foolish things like, "if you don't have anything to worry about what difference does it make"? That gentlemen is not the answer of a true patriot it is the unadulterated response of a true idiot.

    I can respect someone that can now admit that there were some pretty grievious breaches of constitutional rights going on during those two terms. It's not to beat up on Bush and say I'm right, it's because forward progress is made by looking closely, very closely so as to be able to keep it from happening again.

    I may have voted for this president but I will be part of the mob that impeaches him if he takes any single bad step Bush did, just as I would have been part of the support to impeach Bush.

    Obama's powder keg is what he does with the impending patriot act term end date. Ball's in his court as to extend it and perpetuate a monster constitutional breach, or put it down and try to restore our rights. He will be beat up no matter which way he goes. Billions of dollars were invested in the infrastructure of setting up the monstrous information network within communications companies so it isn't an easy thing to derail. The government has added 26,000 people working in key positions in communications companies as paid deputies probably so that they can tie their hands to talking about what the surveillance systems are and can do. We don't seem to get much information except that we pretty much seem to have an awareness that this is real big brother in action.


    Yet another example of "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with bullsh_t" from woodguru.

    The question put to you, woodguru, was quite simple:

    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    I wonder what YOUR definition of `Shall Not Be Infringed' is ? Just for kicks and grins ?

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the term "Shall not be infringed" is only contained in the Second Amenment. Yet we get another long winded, rambling essay on how 'freaked out' you were over the Patriot Act.

    While I was not and am not at all comfortable about the Patriot Act, and did write my elected representatives in opposition to it, I can understand your being 'freaked out' due to the fact that you evidently are new to this planet and think that Bush was a dictator and had the power to enact any and every law he could think up.

    Maybe if you took the time to enroll in an American citizenship class, such as is required of immigrants to this country, you would learn that Bush merely (still a bad thing IMO) signed this statute into law AFTER it was voted on and passed in both the house and senate.

    In 2001 the house vote was 357 Yea, 66 Nay, 9 non-voting, while the seante voted 98 Yea, 1 Nay, 1 non-voting.

    In 2006 the house votes were 280 Yea, 138 Nay, 14NV while the senate was 89 Yea, 10 Nay, 1 NV.

    To be honest, I was 'freaked out' to learn that in 2001 there were 357 Republican members in the house and 98 Republican senators, because obviously in your world, no good, upstanding Democrats would have voted for such a bill.

    But then again, Bush just enacted the Patriot Act on his own. Sorry, I forgot.

    Bush was not a conservative, not a Constitutionalist to be sure. But he was not even in the same anti-american league as Marxist Obama. Just wait and see.

    Now, can we get your answer to Highball's question?


    What do you want you bufoon? I gave you one of the most on point and clearly stated examples of our constitutional rights and protections being infringed on, no wait a minute that wasn't an infringement it was a case of the constitution being stomped on with gestapo stormtrooper's boots.

    You friggin joker, the patriot act was passed after the fact by a senate that was too far past not impeaching on a multiple of counts to choose impeachment over after the fact fixes to the breaches of constitutional protections. I don't care what you want to call it do you think it was right to choose after the fact legislation that made it okay after the fact?

    Call it legal after the fact what was your patriotic opinion of a breach having been perpetrated in the first place or were you even registering the breach at the time?


    Ha ha[:D]

    Just another example for all to see, woodguru.

    You are incapable of providing a simple, straightforward answer to even a basic question of where you stand on Constitutional rights.

    The term "...shall not be infringed.", appears in the Second Amendment.

    You could not answer Highball's original inquiry as to what your definition of the term means. You still have not answered that question.

    Furthermore, you could not even repeat the phrase correctly. You put "shall not be infringed upon".

    Then you fly off on some rant about the Patriot Act and how Bush, being the all-powerful monarch, implemented it alone.

    BTW, they are call 'primary elections' not "preliminary".

    Next, I challenged you on your assertions that Bush alone implemented the Patriot Act. I quoted facts and figures to show that it was a joint effort in subverting the Constitution by the house, the senate and Bush.

    Failing to find any logical, rational, fact-based arguement to offer any kind of support to your arguement, you resorted to the time honored, Liberal trademark, personal attack and name calling.

    Typical and expected from such a 'learned' Leftist, global collectivist supporting individual. It always comes out the same.

    Liberals (communists) spout their collectivist rants; Constitutionalists challenge them with facts and figures; Liberals resort to personal attacks and name calling. Very predicatble, just a matter of time.

    I'll throw some salt in your wound here.

    You claim to be highly educated with a very braod level of experience to back up your support of communist ideals and principles, which then turn into childish rants of name calling.

    I am a high school graduate, Army veteran, graduated from a technical school, taken a couple of college classes (didn't like the socialist bent of college), owned a couple of businesses and now work contract for myself.

    I have challenged you, provided facts & figures that you are unable to respond to in an adult manner, and you have shown your true colors.

    Thank you for proving the Constitutional Conservative point. Well done.
  • woodguruwoodguru Member Posts: 2,850
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by losttrail
    quote:Originally posted by woodguru
    quote:Originally posted by losttrail
    quote:Originally posted by woodguru
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    Thanks for the endless dissertation over the evils of bush and the ever-so-gentle nudgings towards the present administration.

    However, I think you will find that intelligent people FULLY understand that politicians are slimebags..corrupted beyond belief.

    quote:There are a lot of gun oriented people that are pretty clueless about the constitution and what it means to talk about constitutional rights I find this statement fascinating.
    I wonder what YOUR definition of `Shall Not Be Infringed' is ? Just for kicks and grins ?
    As for the rest of your rather lengthy treatise ;
    We all pick the hill on which we will die.
    Thank you for attempting to have that hill be a molehill.one carefully calculated to bring little support from the general public.OR other gun owners.
    But no, thank you kindly.



    My definition of "shall not be infringed upon" was that I was pretty freaked out when it came out that Bush had already initiated a wholesale nation wide wiretapping and electronic surveillance. I basically saw those who were aware and couldn't believe those who weren't concerned because they had already signed onto the roles of patriotism as defined by those who "support our troops" which was another way to say they let the government have an open checkbook for the war.

    I hear a lot of gum flapping by a lot of people who profess to hold to our constitution dearly. Those same people, many of them anyway were asleep at the wheel when illegal wiretaps were found to be in effect, after the fact I'll add for those who missed my point. Illegal arrests and detainments were already resulting from these actions that had been taking place. The Bush administration being the masters of spin and public support that they are had to merely couch these illegal actions in the guise of "the patriot act" and we get the most self professed patriots in the country supporting these noble intents of ferreting out terrorism wherever it might be illegally found.

    Nixon was going to be impeached and had to hand in his resignation for wiretapping an office building. Bush illegally wiretaps and uses electronic surveillance on computer information of our entire population indescriminately, and goes one step further and arrests and detains people without judicial oversight as spelled out in the constitution as pertains to out personal rights and protections from just such gestapo tactics.

    Where were all of the patriots who hold our constitutional protections so dearly? They were showing their patriotism by supporting the patriot act by allowing Bush to usurp our protections in the name of protecting us from terrorism. I'm afraid the arrest and detainment thing hit a little too close to home with me when I was doing nothing illegal but working on my personal rights to say and write what I want about government waste and fraud. When an honest citizen has to worry about the line between being a threat to national security and being a threat to the establishment's greed and corruption being the same thing in terms of rights being endangered I'm a bit offended by those who were asleep and missed the threat entirely. Rather than being attacked I'd like to hear that at least now after the fact that anyone wanting to talk about politics at least has the smarts to acknowledge that we severely messed up letting Bush get away with that.

    At the time I was asking my patriotic (sounds a lot like idiotic to me) friends what they thought of an entire huge scale wiretapping operation going into effect illegally, all of the morons I knew could just say foolish things like, "if you don't have anything to worry about what difference does it make"? That gentlemen is not the answer of a true patriot it is the unadulterated response of a true idiot.

    I can respect someone that can now admit that there were some pretty grievious breaches of constitutional rights going on during those two terms. It's not to beat up on Bush and say I'm right, it's because forward progress is made by looking closely, very closely so as to be able to keep it from happening again.

    I may have voted for this president but I will be part of the mob that impeaches him if he takes any single bad step Bush did, just as I would have been part of the support to impeach Bush.

    Obama's powder keg is what he does with the impending patriot act term end date. Ball's in his court as to extend it and perpetuate a monster constitutional breach, or put it down and try to restore our rights. He will be beat up no matter which way he goes. Billions of dollars were invested in the infrastructure of setting up the monstrous information network within communications companies so it isn't an easy thing to derail. The government has added 26,000 people working in key positions in communications companies as paid deputies probably so that they can tie their hands to talking about what the surveillance systems are and can do. We don't seem to get much information except that we pretty much seem to have an awareness that this is real big brother in action.


    Yet another example of "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with bullsh_t" from woodguru.

    The question put to you, woodguru, was quite simple:

    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    I wonder what YOUR definition of `Shall Not Be Infringed' is ? Just for kicks and grins ?

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the term "Shall not be infringed" is only contained in the Second Amenment. Yet we get another long winded, rambling essay on how 'freaked out' you were over the Patriot Act.

    While I was not and am not at all comfortable about the Patriot Act, and did write my elected representatives in opposition to it, I can understand your being 'freaked out' due to the fact that you evidently are new to this planet and think that Bush was a dictator and had the power to enact any and every law he could think up.

    Maybe if you took the time to enroll in an American citizenship class, such as is required of immigrants to this country, you would learn that Bush merely (still a bad thing IMO) signed this statute into law AFTER it was voted on and passed in both the house and senate.

    In 2001 the house vote was 357 Yea, 66 Nay, 9 non-voting, while the seante voted 98 Yea, 1 Nay, 1 non-voting.

    In 2006 the house votes were 280 Yea, 138 Nay, 14NV while the senate was 89 Yea, 10 Nay, 1 NV.

    To be honest, I was 'freaked out' to learn that in 2001 there were 357 Republican members in the house and 98 Republican senators, because obviously in your world, no good, upstanding Democrats would have voted for such a bill.

    But then again, Bush just enacted the Patriot Act on his own. Sorry, I forgot.

    Bush was not a conservative, not a Constitutionalist to be sure. But he was not even in the same anti-american league as Marxist Obama. Just wait and see.

    Now, can we get your answer to Highball's question?


    What do you want you bufoon? I gave you one of the most on point and clearly stated examples of our constitutional rights and protections being infringed on, no wait a minute that wasn't an infringement it was a case of the constitution being stomped on with gestapo stormtrooper's boots.

    You friggin joker, the patriot act was passed after the fact by a senate that was too far past not impeaching on a multiple of counts to choose impeachment over after the fact fixes to the breaches of constitutional protections. I don't care what you want to call it do you think it was right to choose after the fact legislation that made it okay after the fact?

    Call it legal after the fact what was your patriotic opinion of a breach having been perpetrated in the first place or were you even registering the breach at the time?


    Ha ha[:D]

    Just another example for all to see, woodguru.

    You are incapable of providing a simple, straightforward answer to even a basic question of where you stand on Constitutional rights.

    The term "...shall not be infringed.", appears in the Second Amendment.

    You could not answer Highball's original inquiry as to what your definition of the term means. You still have not answered that question.

    Furthermore, you could not even repeat the phrase correctly. You put "shall not be infringed upon".

    Then you fly off on some rant about the Patriot Act and how Bush, being the all-powerful monarch, implemented it alone.

    BTW, they are call 'primary elections' not "preliminary".

    Next, I challenged you on your assertions that Bush alone implemented the Patriot Act. I quoted facts and figures to show that it was a joint effort in subverting the Constitution by the house, the senate and Bush.

    Failing to find any logical, rational, fact-based arguement to offer any kind of support to your arguement, you resorted to the time honored, Liberal trademark, personal attack and name calling.

    Typical and expected from such a 'learned' Leftist, global collectivist supporting individual. It always comes out the same.

    Liberals (communists) spout their collectivist rants; Constitutionalists challenge them with facts and figures; Liberals resort to personal attacks and name calling. Very predicatble, just a matter of time.

    I'll throw some salt in your wound here.

    You claim to be highly educated with a very braod level of experience to back up your support of communist ideals and principles, which then turn into childish rants of name calling.

    I am a high school graduate, Army veteran, graduated from a technical school, taken a couple of college classes (didn't like the socialist bent of college), owned a couple of businesses and now work contract for myself.

    I have challenged you, provided facts & figures that you are unable to respond to in an adult manner, and you have shown your true colors.

    Thank you for proving the Constitutional Conservative point. Well done.


    As always, I look forward to losttrail's witless ramblings and inability to ignore the meaningless little things like infringed upon (which I had stated correctly earlier), I just got lazy on the exact wordage because that was not the point.

    Basically it's pretty hard to respond to that which doesn't do much to hold up it's end of a good debate. Sorry to disagree with you but 95% of the name calling on my threads comes from the other direction.

    My point that I was making was to ask a question that few have answered, what was the general attitude of those who consider themselves to be patriots when it came to light that congress was dealing with after the fact legislation that settled either making what Bush had already been doing that was illegal legal after the fact or impeaching him. The issue of impeachment was debated in senate hearings and the consensus was that a long drawn out investigation with it's information hiding and stonewalling oversight investigations would not be in the best interests of the country or the democratic party.

    I'm just asking, what was your feeling at that time, did you feel that the objective of protecting you against terrorism outweighed the FACT that your constitutional protections had been deeply usurped or were you aware of the breach and supportive of impeachment? As I stated before, at the time it was going on my Bush supporting hunting friends were oblivious and would respond by asking "if you don't have anything to hide why are you worried about it"?

    If Obama started a large scale illegal surveillance and arrest program and tried to get it approved after the fact he would go down, the group that put him in office would not be patriotic enough to fall for something illegal being called the patriot act.

    What were your thoughts at the time the debate was happening before approvals had been enacted?
  • losttraillosttrail Member Posts: 185 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by woodguru
    quote:Originally posted by losttrail
    quote:Originally posted by woodguru
    quote:Originally posted by losttrail
    quote:Originally posted by woodguru
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    Thanks for the endless dissertation over the evils of bush and the ever-so-gentle nudgings towards the present administration.

    However, I think you will find that intelligent people FULLY understand that politicians are slimebags..corrupted beyond belief.

    quote:There are a lot of gun oriented people that are pretty clueless about the constitution and what it means to talk about constitutional rights I find this statement fascinating.
    I wonder what YOUR definition of `Shall Not Be Infringed' is ? Just for kicks and grins ?
    As for the rest of your rather lengthy treatise ;
    We all pick the hill on which we will die.
    Thank you for attempting to have that hill be a molehill.one carefully calculated to bring little support from the general public.OR other gun owners.
    But no, thank you kindly.



    My definition of "shall not be infringed upon" was that I was pretty freaked out when it came out that Bush had already initiated a wholesale nation wide wiretapping and electronic surveillance. I basically saw those who were aware and couldn't believe those who weren't concerned because they had already signed onto the roles of patriotism as defined by those who "support our troops" which was another way to say they let the government have an open checkbook for the war.

    I hear a lot of gum flapping by a lot of people who profess to hold to our constitution dearly. Those same people, many of them anyway were asleep at the wheel when illegal wiretaps were found to be in effect, after the fact I'll add for those who missed my point. Illegal arrests and detainments were already resulting from these actions that had been taking place. The Bush administration being the masters of spin and public support that they are had to merely couch these illegal actions in the guise of "the patriot act" and we get the most self professed patriots in the country supporting these noble intents of ferreting out terrorism wherever it might be illegally found.

    Nixon was going to be impeached and had to hand in his resignation for wiretapping an office building. Bush illegally wiretaps and uses electronic surveillance on computer information of our entire population indescriminately, and goes one step further and arrests and detains people without judicial oversight as spelled out in the constitution as pertains to out personal rights and protections from just such gestapo tactics.

    Where were all of the patriots who hold our constitutional protections so dearly? They were showing their patriotism by supporting the patriot act by allowing Bush to usurp our protections in the name of protecting us from terrorism. I'm afraid the arrest and detainment thing hit a little too close to home with me when I was doing nothing illegal but working on my personal rights to say and write what I want about government waste and fraud. When an honest citizen has to worry about the line between being a threat to national security and being a threat to the establishment's greed and corruption being the same thing in terms of rights being endangered I'm a bit offended by those who were asleep and missed the threat entirely. Rather than being attacked I'd like to hear that at least now after the fact that anyone wanting to talk about politics at least has the smarts to acknowledge that we severely messed up letting Bush get away with that.

    At the time I was asking my patriotic (sounds a lot like idiotic to me) friends what they thought of an entire huge scale wiretapping operation going into effect illegally, all of the morons I knew could just say foolish things like, "if you don't have anything to worry about what difference does it make"? That gentlemen is not the answer of a true patriot it is the unadulterated response of a true idiot.

    I can respect someone that can now admit that there were some pretty grievious breaches of constitutional rights going on during those two terms. It's not to beat up on Bush and say I'm right, it's because forward progress is made by looking closely, very closely so as to be able to keep it from happening again.

    I may have voted for this president but I will be part of the mob that impeaches him if he takes any single bad step Bush did, just as I would have been part of the support to impeach Bush.

    Obama's powder keg is what he does with the impending patriot act term end date. Ball's in his court as to extend it and perpetuate a monster constitutional breach, or put it down and try to restore our rights. He will be beat up no matter which way he goes. Billions of dollars were invested in the infrastructure of setting up the monstrous information network within communications companies so it isn't an easy thing to derail. The government has added 26,000 people working in key positions in communications companies as paid deputies probably so that they can tie their hands to talking about what the surveillance systems are and can do. We don't seem to get much information except that we pretty much seem to have an awareness that this is real big brother in action.


    Yet another example of "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with bullsh_t" from woodguru.

    The question put to you, woodguru, was quite simple:

    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    I wonder what YOUR definition of `Shall Not Be Infringed' is ? Just for kicks and grins ?

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the term "Shall not be infringed" is only contained in the Second Amenment. Yet we get another long winded, rambling essay on how 'freaked out' you were over the Patriot Act.

    While I was not and am not at all comfortable about the Patriot Act, and did write my elected representatives in opposition to it, I can understand your being 'freaked out' due to the fact that you evidently are new to this planet and think that Bush was a dictator and had the power to enact any and every law he could think up.

    Maybe if you took the time to enroll in an American citizenship class, such as is required of immigrants to this country, you would learn that Bush merely (still a bad thing IMO) signed this statute into law AFTER it was voted on and passed in both the house and senate.

    In 2001 the house vote was 357 Yea, 66 Nay, 9 non-voting, while the seante voted 98 Yea, 1 Nay, 1 non-voting.

    In 2006 the house votes were 280 Yea, 138 Nay, 14NV while the senate was 89 Yea, 10 Nay, 1 NV.

    To be honest, I was 'freaked out' to learn that in 2001 there were 357 Republican members in the house and 98 Republican senators, because obviously in your world, no good, upstanding Democrats would have voted for such a bill.

    But then again, Bush just enacted the Patriot Act on his own. Sorry, I forgot.

    Bush was not a conservative, not a Constitutionalist to be sure. But he was not even in the same anti-american league as Marxist Obama. Just wait and see.

    Now, can we get your answer to Highball's question?


    What do you want you bufoon? I gave you one of the most on point and clearly stated examples of our constitutional rights and protections being infringed on, no wait a minute that wasn't an infringement it was a case of the constitution being stomped on with gestapo stormtrooper's boots.

    You friggin joker, the patriot act was passed after the fact by a senate that was too far past not impeaching on a multiple of counts to choose impeachment over after the fact fixes to the breaches of constitutional protections. I don't care what you want to call it do you think it was right to choose after the fact legislation that made it okay after the fact?

    Call it legal after the fact what was your patriotic opinion of a breach having been perpetrated in the first place or were you even registering the breach at the time?


    Ha ha[:D]

    Just another example for all to see, woodguru.

    You are incapable of providing a simple, straightforward answer to even a basic question of where you stand on Constitutional rights.

    The term "...shall not be infringed.", appears in the Second Amendment.

    You could not answer Highball's original inquiry as to what your definition of the term means. You still have not answered that question.

    Furthermore, you could not even repeat the phrase correctly. You put "shall not be infringed upon".

    Then you fly off on some rant about the Patriot Act and how Bush, being the all-powerful monarch, implemented it alone.

    BTW, they are call 'primary elections' not "preliminary".

    Next, I challenged you on your assertions that Bush alone implemented the Patriot Act. I quoted facts and figures to show that it was a joint effort in subverting the Constitution by the house, the senate and Bush.

    Failing to find any logical, rational, fact-based arguement to offer any kind of support to your arguement, you resorted to the time honored, Liberal trademark, personal attack and name calling.

    Typical and expected from such a 'learned' Leftist, global collectivist supporting individual. It always comes out the same.

    Liberals (communists) spout their collectivist rants; Constitutionalists challenge them with facts and figures; Liberals resort to personal attacks and name calling. Very predicatble, just a matter of time.

    I'll throw some salt in your wound here.

    You claim to be highly educated with a very braod level of experience to back up your support of communist ideals and principles, which then turn into childish rants of name calling.

    I am a high school graduate, Army veteran, graduated from a technical school, taken a couple of college classes (didn't like the socialist bent of college), owned a couple of businesses and now work contract for myself.

    I have challenged you, provided facts & figures that you are unable to respond to in an adult manner, and you have shown your true colors.

    Thank you for proving the Constitutional Conservative point. Well done.


    As always, I look forward to losttrail's witless ramblings and inability to ignore the meaningless little things like infringed upon (which I had stated correctly earlier), I just got lazy on the exact wordage because that was not the point.

    Basically it's pretty hard to respond to that which doesn't do much to hold up it's end of a good debate. Sorry to disagree with you but 95% of the name calling on my threads comes from the other direction.

    My point that I was making was to ask a question that few have answered, what was the general attitude of those who consider themselves to be patriots when it came to light that congress was dealing with after the fact legislation that settled either making what Bush had already been doing that was illegal legal after the fact or impeaching him. The issue of impeachment was debated in senate hearings and the consensus was that a long drawn out investigation with it's information hiding and stonewalling oversight investigations would not be in the best interests of the country or the democratic party.

    I'm just asking, what was your feeling at that time, did you feel that the objective of protecting you against terrorism outweighed the FACT that your constitutional protections had been deeply usurped or were you aware of the breach and supportive of impeachment? As I stated before, at the time it was going on my Bush supporting hunting friends were oblivious and would respond by asking "if you don't have anything to hide why are you worried about it"?

    If Obama started a large scale illegal surveillance and arrest program and tried to get it approved after the fact he would go down, the group that put him in office would not be patriotic enough to fall for something illegal being called the patriot act.

    What were your thoughts at the time the debate was happening before approvals had been enacted?




    Woodguru,
    Maybe you read one of my previous postings in this thread, maybe you didn't. Or maybe it's a comprehension issue.

    However, I did post that I was not and am not in favor of the Patriot Act. Though a good face was put out for the public, it is a horrible piece of legislation that subverts the Constitution. As I stated earlier, I contacted my elected 'representatives' and voiced my opposition, however, they have little if any concern for what "We, the people" think.

    The Patriot Act however, pales in comparison to what Marxist Obama is doing.

    Now back to "shall not be infringed" and your inability to answer Highball's question.

    Let me start, I'll go slowly so you hopefully don't get lost. Ok, here comes the Second Amendment; read it slowly:

    "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."

    To me this means that government has no right or claim to deny the citizenry of America their right to protect themselves, their livelyhood, their property, by force of arms. It also means that the right of citizens to keep said armaments on their person or property shall not be inringed by the government.

    Now, do I believe that there should be reasonable restrictions to prevent persons with certain criminal or mental issues from owning or possessing arms? Of course.

    However, law abiding citizens should not have to have any permit to own, transport or carry a firearm, concealed or open.

    A background check for criminal or mental issues? Fine, but destroy the records immediately following approval.

    See how easy that is?

    Back to the patriot Act. It pales in comparison to what Marxist Obama is doing currently.

    He is preparing to hand over our sovereignty to foreigh governments and entities by signing treaties and protocols. He won't have to pass legislation through Congress. He'll just get foreign entities to subvert the Constitution.
  • 82nd airborne infantry82nd airborne infantry Member Posts: 12 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Woodgooru,,,, do you ever stop running your soup coolers??? all of what you type is either out right lies or sooo full of crap , that it's impossible to understand your point!!!
  • woodguruwoodguru Member Posts: 2,850
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by 82nd airborne infantry
    Woodgooru,,,, do you ever stop running your soup coolers??? all of what you type is either out right lies or sooo full of crap , that it's impossible to understand your point!!!


    That was profoundly enlightening, did you land on your head while parachuting once or twice too often? What's it take to get into airborne, 67th percentile?
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by losttrail


    Woodguru,
    Maybe you read one of my previous postings in this thread, maybe you didn't. Or maybe it's a comprehension issue.

    However, I did post that I was not and am not in favor of the Patriot Act. Though a good face was put out for the public, it is a horrible piece of legislation that subverts the Constitution. As I stated earlier, I contacted my elected 'representatives' and voiced my opposition, however, they have little if any concern for what "We, the people" think.

    The Patriot Act however, pales in comparison to what Marxist Obama is doing.

    Now back to "shall not be infringed" and your inability to answer Highball's question.

    Let me start, I'll go slowly so you hopefully don't get lost. Ok, here comes the Second Amendment; read it slowly:

    "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."

    To me this means that government has no right or claim to deny the citizenry of America their right to protect themselves, their livelyhood, their property, by force of arms. It also means that the right of citizens to keep said armaments on their person or property shall not be inringed by the government.

    Now, do I believe that there should be reasonable restrictions to prevent persons with certain criminal or mental issues from owning or possessing arms? Of course.

    However, law abiding citizens should not have to have any permit to own, transport or carry a firearm, concealed or open.

    A background check for criminal or mental issues? Fine, but destroy the records immediately following approval.

    See how easy that is?

    Back to the patriot Act. It pales in comparison to what Marxist Obama is doing currently.

    He is preparing to hand over our sovereignty to foreigh governments and entities by signing treaties and protocols. He won't have to pass legislation through Congress. He'll just get foreign entities to subvert the Constitution.


    SO, after all this rambling, even YOU don't understand SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?

    Where in that statement does the goverenment derrive POWER to do NICS check?
    Where does it derrive POWER to ascribe WHAT freeperson MAY or MAY NOT posses firearms?

    [xx(]
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by freemind
    quote:Originally posted by losttrail


    Woodguru,
    Maybe you read one of my previous postings in this thread, maybe you didn't. Or maybe it's a comprehension issue.

    However, I did post that I was not and am not in favor of the Patriot Act. Though a good face was put out for the public, it is a horrible piece of legislation that subverts the Constitution. As I stated earlier, I contacted my elected 'representatives' and voiced my opposition, however, they have little if any concern for what "We, the people" think.

    The Patriot Act however, pales in comparison to what Marxist Obama is doing.

    Now back to "shall not be infringed" and your inability to answer Highball's question.

    Let me start, I'll go slowly so you hopefully don't get lost. Ok, here comes the Second Amendment; read it slowly:

    "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."

    To me this means that government has no right or claim to deny the citizenry of America their right to protect themselves, their livelyhood, their property, by force of arms. It also means that the right of citizens to keep said armaments on their person or property shall not be inringed by the government.

    Now, do I believe that there should be reasonable restrictions to prevent persons with certain criminal or mental issues from owning or possessing arms? Of course.

    However, law abiding citizens should not have to have any permit to own, transport or carry a firearm, concealed or open.

    A background check for criminal or mental issues? Fine, but destroy the records immediately following approval.

    See how easy that is?

    Back to the patriot Act. It pales in comparison to what Marxist Obama is doing currently.

    He is preparing to hand over our sovereignty to foreigh governments and entities by signing treaties and protocols. He won't have to pass legislation through Congress. He'll just get foreign entities to subvert the Constitution.


    SO, after all this rambling, even YOU don't understand SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?

    Where in that statement does the goverenment derrive POWER to do NICS check?
    Where does it derrive POWER to ascribe WHAT freeperson MAY or MAY NOT posses firearms?

    [xx(]
    Yep, maybe he should have taken a lesson from 'collectivistguru' and avoided answering the question..."shall not be infringed", what does it mean?

    This self-unmasking is likely exactly what 'collectivistguru' desperately wants to avoid.

    One of our biggest dangers in the continuing erosion of the Republic are 'so-called' and 'self-proclaimed' gun-rights advocates.

    In general, they advocate for the government having the authority to infringe on the RKBA, but 'only a little bit', thinking that this makes their position, somehow, 'reasonable' and 'palatable' to the general population.

    In reality, they are no more understanding and/or supportive of Amendment II and what it entails and what it demands, than those of 'collectivistguru's' ilk...

    Fear of real liberty and the inherent dangers?

    Fear of what 'someone may do'?

    The unwillingness to grasp and demand swift, sure and certain sanctions for an individual who commits a 'bad-act', rather than the anti-constitutional prohibitions, controls, regulations and other infringements on an object or category of people?

    Who knows, but the end result of the open advocacy of gun-control and the self-proclaimed gun-rights crowd, is clear to see....ever-increasing restrictions and controls on a citizens unfettered ability to keep and bear arms.


    Collectivism inevitably leads to totalitarianism. A simple, yet demonstrable truism...
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by lt496
    quote:Originally posted by freemind
    quote:Originally posted by losttrail


    Woodguru,
    Maybe you read one of my previous postings in this thread, maybe you didn't. Or maybe it's a comprehension issue.

    However, I did post that I was not and am not in favor of the Patriot Act. Though a good face was put out for the public, it is a horrible piece of legislation that subverts the Constitution. As I stated earlier, I contacted my elected 'representatives' and voiced my opposition, however, they have little if any concern for what "We, the people" think.

    The Patriot Act however, pales in comparison to what Marxist Obama is doing.

    Now back to "shall not be infringed" and your inability to answer Highball's question.

    Let me start, I'll go slowly so you hopefully don't get lost. Ok, here comes the Second Amendment; read it slowly:

    "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."

    To me this means that government has no right or claim to deny the citizenry of America their right to protect themselves, their livelyhood, their property, by force of arms. It also means that the right of citizens to keep said armaments on their person or property shall not be inringed by the government.

    Now, do I believe that there should be reasonable restrictions to prevent persons with certain criminal or mental issues from owning or possessing arms? Of course.

    However, law abiding citizens should not have to have any permit to own, transport or carry a firearm, concealed or open.

    A background check for criminal or mental issues? Fine, but destroy the records immediately following approval.

    See how easy that is?

    Back to the patriot Act. It pales in comparison to what Marxist Obama is doing currently.

    He is preparing to hand over our sovereignty to foreigh governments and entities by signing treaties and protocols. He won't have to pass legislation through Congress. He'll just get foreign entities to subvert the Constitution.


    SO, after all this rambling, even YOU don't understand SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?

    Where in that statement does the goverenment derrive POWER to do NICS check?
    Where does it derrive POWER to ascribe WHAT freeperson MAY or MAY NOT posses firearms?

    [xx(]
    Yep, maybe he should have taken a lesson from 'collectivistguru' and avoided answering the question..."shall not be infringed", what does it mean?

    This self-unmasking is likely exactly what 'collectivistguru' desperately wants to avoid.

    One of our biggest dangers in the continuing erosion of the Republic are 'so-called' and 'self-proclaimed' gun-rights advocates.

    In general, they advocate for the government having the authority to infringe on the RKBA, but 'only a little bit', thinking that this makes their position, somehow, 'reasonable' and 'palatable' to the general population.

    In reality, they are no more understanding and/or supportive of Amendment II and what it entails and what it demands, than those of 'collectivistguru's' ilk...

    Fear of real liberty and the inherent dangers?

    Fear of what 'someone may do'?

    The unwillingness to grasp and demand swift, sure and certain sanctions for an individual who commits a 'bad-act', rather than the anti-constitutional prohibitions, controls, regulations and other infringements on an object or category of people?

    Who knows, but the end result of the open advocacy of gun-control and the self-proclaimed gun-rights crowd, is clear to see....ever-increasing restrictions and controls on a citizens unfettered ability to keep and bear arms.


    Collectivism inevitably leads to totalitarianism. A simple, yet demonstrable truism...







    Well said brother. [:)]
  • 82nd airborne infantry82nd airborne infantry Member Posts: 12 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    wood loser.. whats clear is how full of crap you are. I've met people like you in my life.. that no matter what the story they(you ) have done it and did it better. By lies I refer to some of your other posts( average of over 10 daily..god get a life)..you claim your brother was some TOP Secret MI Specialist in the military..yet you can't even remember how long he was in..5 years, 15..25... his kids may or may not have had been born with or without hands.... as well as this post where you claim " I have competed in benchrest,trap,skeet pistol, airgun"..blah blah blah..you left out cowboy action, the olympics and carnivals...my god the BS gets deeper with every post (BOOK) you write. where do you find the time for all that shooting competition.. hell you live on the computer all day! I could go on ,,but really don't see the point. you know your full of crap and so doesn't anyone reading your posts (books) on here. As for your SIMPLE minded lame insult about Airborne Paratroopers.... I would ask if you had the balls to serve in the military.. but I'm sure more of your BS lies would errupt...time for you to move on to a new post board don't you think?
  • pickenuppickenup Member, Moderator Posts: 22,397 ******
    edited November -1
Sign In or Register to comment.