- Joined
- Sep 3, 2010
- Messages
- 120,954
- Reaction score
- 28,531
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
if you are intimidated whose fault is that.
the fault of those who are engaged in intentional intimidation.
if you are intimidated whose fault is that.
The fact that you feel intimidated when you see your fellow Americans bearing arms doesn't negate their constitutional right to do so.
the fault of those who are engaged in intentional intimidation.
but that assumes that people bearing guns are trying to intimidate those who are cowardly and afraid of armed citizens.
I reject your suggestion that merely bearing arms is designed to intimidate honest people.
I have not one smidgen of doubt lying, duplicitous, excuses for human beings are so scared out of their wits they are willing to endanger the public's safety and usurp their rights so if the public should find out about their underhand and corrupt dealings they cannot become angry and take it out on them. Politicians not worthy of employment have been doing this for years in order to ensure and usurp power making sure government holds the monopoly of power.
I think Thomas Jones Whitehall diaries presents the fear of these cowards as they mislead citizens with lies and endangerment of life without so much as pausing for breath.
Politicians for once facing armed citizens in public discourse my actually tell the truth. I would love to see them quaking at every answer. The world would be a better place. All governments should fear its citizens as it is citizens task to chastise or correct them when they do wrong.
There is no constitutional right to openly carry and intimidate your fellow Americans. I fully realize that your side knows they are a minority and knows they cannot win through sheer majority numbers so this is the strategy they have adopted. It is disgusting. It is unAmerican. And it is no better than terrorism.
one of your own already admitted it just yesterday.
There is no constitutional right to openly carry and intimidate your fellow Americans. I fully realize that your side knows they are a minority and knows they cannot win through sheer majority numbers so this is the strategy they have adopted. It is disgusting. It is unAmerican. And it is no better than terrorism.
I guess we simply see things very differently. I do not want to live in a society where openly armed men can intimidate others by their mere appearance. If we go to the kind of gun centric society that some on the right seem to advocate, it would have a very chilling effect on the exercise of other freedoms like speech in civic participation.
I do not want to feel a citizen cannot openly express their honest opinion just because Rambo in the same room is scowling at them armed to the teeth.
so if a coward complains that "I am intimidated" that is enough to limit the right of a person to keep and BEAR arms?
real intimidation is dishonest scumbag politicians trying to rape our constitutional rights in order to either pander to cowards, hand wringing ninnies who want SOMETHING TO BE DONE about crime, or worst of all, those who want to punish gun owners for not being far left socialists
I am an individual, I am not responsible for someone else's views.
Those wanting to SSM are a tiny minority too... shall we trample their rights because they are not a majority?
Most say no.
I seem to recall this Constitution thingy that was supposed to protect the minority FROM the tyranny of the majority that the Founders rightly feared.
I have no idea where all this hyperbolic and intentionally insulting name calling is coming from. It certainly serves no advancement of proper discourse.
This is about the radical right wing and their agenda. And that cat is already well out of the bag as everyone can well see.
Yes it does. And when their rights are violated I will join you in anger and protest.
Voter intimidation is a crime.
Open carry, where legal, is not. .
I've gathered we have certain points of disagreement on where that line is...
... and therein lies the problem.
sadly, your definition of what is "radical right wing" is far different than mine
I never said it was. I would say that for most it definitely should be as it serves to intimidate fellow American as part of a right wing strategy confirmed right here by a gun lobby advocate.
I am asking If I walk into a store with an M4 over my shoulder and a 1911 on my hip and some anti gun weenie complained that my actions of merely bearing arms intimidated him, is that justification to limit my rights even if the store owner says OPEN CARRY WELCOME
proper discourse is best advanced when people reveal their true motives for their positions
Hay I think you're getting a little conspiracy-theory-ish with that, to be honest. You're taking one random internet person's words and extrapolating a "right wing strategy" as a result...
I must have missed the memo... :lamo
I simply take what is provided and given to me.
I suspect that Crimefree missed the memo or was absent for the seminar on how to hide the agenda and simply said something which he should not have.
I never gave a definition. they define themselves by their statements. They do that without permission from anyone - and that includes both you and I.
That is not the America that encourages open discussion and the exercise of others rights. It should never get to that point and such displays of extremism should be stopped with legislation from the duly elected representatives of the American people acting under the authority of the law and the Constitution.
Why the continual vitriolic name calling Turtle?
I should have suspected this came from Crimefree. :roll:
Hay, he isn't exactly a spokesman for the NRA. Even those of us YOU consider gun nuts tend to roll our eyes at 80% of the stuff he says...
I am referring to a hypothetical person who would be intimidated by peaceful citizens bearing arms. you refer to such people as extremist and you claim I am doing the insulting?
how is someone openly carrying legal guns EXTREMIST? and why you do want to infringe on their rights with legislation?