If Health Care Reform Passes, Will Things Get Violent?

the makeout hobo said:

I dunno. This seems different somehow. I can't put my finger on it, but people on the right seem more riled up, more angry, more itching for a fight. I mean, when in the recent past did you have people shouting out town hall meetings or bringing guns to presidential rallies? It seems to me that the right is trying to intimidate people that disagree. And if intimidating doesn't work, what's next?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure about your original post.. I'm with Ikari on this one, there is no stomach here for revolt / real change.

The bringing of firearms to the rallies was a way of protest, by gun owners against anti-gun sentiments that Obama's staff has. While Obama has continually stated he'll never take our guns away but that he believes in common sense gun control.... His staff (Eric Holder, Hilary Clinton, and various others) have all insisted that they renew the AWB that Clinton passed in '94.

While this likely won't happen, considering gun sales are through the roof.. (over 1m purchased last month)... It's still a very real possibility once the dems keep power in the 2010 elections. I don't know what's going to happen, but I do remember the liberals losing all of their power in '96, because of the Assault Weapons Ban they imposed... So I think they're treading very lightly on the subject... with intent on re-visiting it sometime.

Keeping in mind, this is all speculation on my part.

Redress said:

That they are idiots?

Click to expand...

Neat, exercise your rights in this country and you're an "idiot". I love liberal double-talk.

the makeout hobo said:

maybe I'm just a bit paranoid of the militia types.

Click to expand...

Being a firearms enthusiast, I am not part of the militia... If I were called on by my State Govenor to serve in the State Militia in a time of Crisis.. then I would dutifully serve... until then, I'm just a ordinary citizen who likes firearms, and precision long range shooting.

independent_thinker2002 said:

What proof have you offered that he is destroying the 2nd Amendment? Please link me to the legislation.

How come conservatives aren't protesting that? Will they bring thermometers and stethoscopes to those protests when they do?

Click to expand...

You're just being facetious, it's been all over the news for the last year with Eric Holder and Hilary both talking about our "gun problem" in light of violence in Mexico... and they're both angling to impose a second AWB. While the likeliness of it actually happening is slim... there still exists that possibility.

stevenb said:

You're just being facetious, it's been all over the news for the last year with Eric Holder and Hilary both talking about our "gun problem" in light of violence in Mexico... and they're both angling to impose a second AWB. While the likeliness of it actually happening is slim... there still exists that possibility.

Click to expand...

I can understand disagreeing with the AWB. But the one I find to be factious is the one who is claiming that they will destroy the 2nd Amendment.

independent_thinker2002 said:

I can understand disagreeing with the AWB. But the one I find to be factious is the one who is claiming that they will destroy the 2nd Amendment.

Click to expand...

The passage of another limitation on our Right to Bear Arms would be in fact destroying the Second Amendment. Our Rights were designed to be absolute, not "when it's convenient". Any encroachments on them as such are destroying their power.

I have no doubts that some of Obama's staff would like to see the entire population disarmed... but that's my opinion.

Keeping in mind that I think "protest zones" are unconstitutional as well...

stevenb said:

The passage of another limitation on our Right to Bear Arms would be in fact destroying the Second Amendment. Our Rights were designed to be absolute, not "when it's convenient". Any encroachments on them as such are destroying their power.

I have no doubts that some of Obama's staff would like to see the entire population disarmed... but that's my opinion.

Keeping in mind that I think "protest zones" are unconstitutional as well...

Click to expand...

According to your definition, the 2nd Amendment is already destroyed. I can't own a great deal of weapons. The 2nd is already regulated. "Destroyed" is just hyperbole.

The 1st Amendment isn't absolute either.

independent_thinker2002 said:

According to your definition, the 2nd Amendment is already destroyed. I can't own a great deal of weapons. The 2nd is already regulated. "Destroyed" is just hyperbole.

The 1st Amendment isn't absolute either.

Click to expand...

I was going to start my response with something along the lines of "you liberals always fall back to nuclear weapons and or the first amendment and how it's 'reasonably regulated'"...


But you seem to have a genuine interest in talking about this.

You weren't asking about my definition, but if you are.. in my beliefs the 2nd Amendment has already been destroyed by anti-gun nuts. Limiting the rights of law abiding citizenry to firearms via: registration, regulation, or wait periods has diminished the Second Amendment horribly.

My possessing a handgun, or ar15, or ak47 doesn't directly affect anyone... Much like your possession of your kitchen knives... Until you take direct action to violate mine, or other's rights with them.

You're wrong, the 1st amendment is absolute (it's been degraded just like the 2nd amendment has). I have the right to say whatever the **** I want to say as long as I'm not encroaching on other's rights... ie: yelling fire in a crowd.

the makeout hobo said:

The right end of the political spectrum has gotten worked up lately, more worked up and agitated than I can remember people getting in a long time. My fear is this: imagine that Obama gets health care reform through congress. We have people at town hall meetings, one of our oldest democratic traditions, shouting out congressmen. We have people bringing guns to political events (that aren't even gun related), and going on about the blood of tyrants. When I see how much hatred and anger is on the far right at this moment, it makes me scared that if they don't get their way they might turn violent. We're talking about violence on a scale larger than a few nuts here and there. Does anyone else see the same thing happening?

Click to expand...

how about maybe, and it's a bad thing?

i believe politicians on the right are tapping into a conscience as well as unconscience well of racism in their constituents, and allowing bad behavior to become the norm. when you have wilson, r-asshole, actually autographing pictures of himself calling the president a liar, you know we have some out of control people, who are probably armed.

i'm gettin' a gun.

MikeVFF said:

Actually excessing a constitutional right that this administration is trying to destroy, but thanks for your insightful commentary

Click to expand...

do you have some proof that this administration is trying to destroy any constitutional rights? thanks.

stevenb said:

I was going to start my response with something along the lines of "you liberals always fall back to nuclear weapons and or the first amendment and how it's 'reasonably regulated'"...


But you seem to have a genuine interest in talking about this.

You weren't asking about my definition, but if you are.. in my beliefs the 2nd Amendment has already been destroyed by anti-gun nuts. Limiting the rights of law abiding citizenry to firearms via: registration, regulation, or wait periods has diminished the Second Amendment horribly.

Click to expand...

I fail to see how it has diminished it. You can still own a gun, right?

stevenb said:

My possessing a handgun, or ar15, or ak47 doesn't directly affect anyone... Much like your possession of your kitchen knives... Until you take direct action to violate mine, or other's rights with them.

Click to expand...

I see your point here. Although a line has to be drawn somewhere. That's where the real debate is. I can understand your opposition to the AWB as the guns included aren't really assault weapons. They just look scary.

stevenb said:

You're wrong, the 1st amendment is absolute (it's been degraded just like the 2nd amendment has). I have the right to say whatever the **** I want to say as long as I'm not encroaching on other's rights... ie: yelling fire in a crowd.

Click to expand...

Obscenity laws have gone overboard.

Threats should be prohibited. Libel/slander should have government enforced consequences. (The govt. deciding on civil suits in this case.)

independent_thinker2002 said:

I fail to see how it has diminished it. You can still own a gun, right?



I see your point here. Although a line has to be drawn somewhere. That's where the real debate is. I can understand your opposition to the AWB as the guns included aren't really assault weapons. They just look scary.



Obscenity laws have gone overboard.

Threats should be prohibited. Libel/slander should have government enforced consequences. (The govt. deciding on civil suits in this case.)

Click to expand...

You're right, I can still own a gun.. but I cannot own a majority of guns that I'd like to own... Or have the right to own, according to the Constitution.

Putting regulation on how I can acquire firearms also leads to their being qualifiers as to what guns if any I can own. The Second Amendment doesn't read "The right to keep and bear arms, as long as the government approves.".

Before you can use the "But people convicted of violent crime / felonies." They have had their rights removed because of their convictions. When they're released, they can file to have their rights restored and again own firearms... Legally.

I don't believe in any type of ban, really. The idea that law abiding citizens are going to do something with a firearm is pretty worn out. Much like people said when AZ became a shall issue state for our CCWs.. I believe it was along the lines of "shootouts on a daily basis", "blood in the streets", "Cops dying left and right"... none of that came true.... because Law abiding citizenry are not inclined to commit violent crimes. So, limiting their access to firearms or outright banning of them isn't preventing crime.. it's only bolstering illegal firearms in the hands of criminals.. and bolstering their bravado in committing crimes against the law abiding.

Threats put someone's life in danger's way directly. Libel/Slander much the same, because they can / will affect the person's livelihood directly.

Your set of kitchen knives in your kitchen... does not affect your neighbor or me. Much like my firearms do not affect you, or your neighbors... Until something is done with them, to affect them / us. (Your knives, or my firearms).

liblady said:

how about maybe, and it's a bad thing?

i believe politicians on the right are tapping into a conscience as well as unconscience well of racism in their constituents, and allowing bad behavior to become the norm. when you have wilson, r-asshole, actually autographing pictures of himself calling the president a liar, you know we have some out of control people, who are probably armed.

i'm gettin' a gun.

Click to expand...

Why?

Can't the police protect you? Are you qualified to protect yourself with a firearm? Are you sure you wouldn't just end up hurting one of your neighbors or possibly your son / daughter / spouse when they came home late?

I believe politicians on the right and left are utilizing a divide and conquer technique that allows them to split the United States of America along a very LARGE fault line.

While there are many who do not like Obama because of his color (and they're ignorant).... There are just many who dislike him because of his policies...

And while we're on the topic of separating ourselves from known racists.. Why have the liberals supported / stuck with the racists that Obama has appointed to his staff? ... Oh, wait.. intolerance is okay if it's on your team. :roll:

stevenb said:

Why?

Can't the police protect you? Are you qualified to protect yourself with a firearm? Are you sure you wouldn't just end up hurting one of your neighbors or possibly your son / daughter / spouse when they came home late?

I believe politicians on the right and left are utilizing a divide and conquer technique that allows them to split the United States of America along a very LARGE fault line.

While there are many who do not like Obama because of his color (and they're ignorant).... There are just many who dislike him because of his policies...

And while we're on the topic of separating ourselves from known racists.. Why have the liberals supported / stuck with the racists that Obama has appointed to his staff? ... Oh, wait.. intolerance is okay if it's on your team. :roll:

Click to expand...

i will argue that many of the people protesting about his "policies" have no freaking clue just what his policies are. they don't care.

obama is NOT attempting to divide and conquer, right now that's part of his probelm, he's playing too nice.

what racists on obama's staff are you referring to?

btw, i have absolutely no issues with repsonsible gun ownership, not a one. of course, to me, responsible ownership doesn't mean carrying to a presidential event, just because one CAN.

THis manufactured anger is geared towards preventing health care reform, and represents a top down approach whereby those who stand to lose something simply use their chosen talk radio pundits to whip up a frenzy so as to intimidate.

If healthcare reform is an established fact, then the tactics will change accordingly. Plus, who, exactly will they target with this violence?

liblady said:

i will argue that many of the people protesting about his "policies" have no freaking clue just what his policies are. they don't care.

obama is NOT attempting to divide and conquer, right now that's part of his probelm, he's playing too nice.

what racists on obama's staff are you referring to?

btw, i have absolutely no issues with repsonsible gun ownership, not a one. of course, to me, responsible ownership doesn't mean carrying to a presidential event, just because one CAN.

Click to expand...

Obama isn't trying to do ****.

I'm talking about you and your conservative counterparts. You're only perpetuating the idea that anyone who disagrees with his policies is a racist... because "omg they're part of the same party!"

Sotamyer is the first that springs to mind... and while it was more curt and discreet, her racism is apparent in the way she speaks of herself... in reference to "non-hispanics".

Personally, I don't care about racism... it's not something that will make me hate you, or who you support.. because it's a viewpoint... albeit kind of stupid.. but it's your viewpoint, and we live in the United States where we're still allowed to have that freedom.

But I do find it funny, and Ironic that the left has continually cried foul about racism.


btw, your idea of "responsible" doesn't change our rights.

the makeout hobo said:

Then what point are people trying to prove by bringing guns to rallies?

Click to expand...

They are merely exercising a right within the confines of the law. Has that somehow become bad? Illegal even though it's not? Are we not supposed to exercise our rights at our discretion?

independent_thinker2002 said:

According to your definition, the 2nd Amendment is already destroyed. I can't own a great deal of weapons. The 2nd is already regulated. "Destroyed" is just hyperbole.

The 1st Amendment isn't absolute either.

Click to expand...

All rights come with the one and only limitation that you cannot infringe upon the rights of others. The 2nd amendment has been under considerable assault and people now seem to freak out whenever someone merely exercises the right. A bunch of chicken littles running around, heh must of picked that up from the Republicans. The goal should be the full restoration of our rights, not further limitations.

liblady said:

responsible ownership doesn't mean carrying to a presidential event, just because one CAN.

Click to expand...

Why? One can, and they did so within full context of the law. They did not act threateningly towards anyway, they didn't do anything wrong. Why should I freak out about that? Why should I get my panties in a knot over this and seek to prevent people from exercising their rights at their discretion while doing nothing wrong?

MikeVFF said:

The right to bear arms? Or do you so off handedly throw out insults you no longer remember those you are criticizing...

Click to expand...

And they are doing this how? What laws are they passing to limit that right? You can back up that claim, right?

Ikari said:

Why? One can, and they did so within full context of the law. They did not act threateningly towards anyway, they didn't do anything wrong. Why should I freak out about that? Why should I get my panties in a knot over this and seek to prevent people from exercising their rights at their discretion while doing nothing wrong?

Click to expand...

yes, they did so legally. why didn't anyone openly carry guns until obama began speaking?

you wear panties? ;-)

stevenb said:

Obama isn't trying to do ****.

I'm talking about you and your conservative counterparts. You're only perpetuating the idea that anyone who disagrees with his policies is a racist... because "omg they're part of the same party!"

Sotamyer is the first that springs to mind... and while it was more curt and discreet, her racism is apparent in the way she speaks of herself... in reference to "non-hispanics".

Personally, I don't care about racism... it's not something that will make me hate you, or who you support.. because it's a viewpoint... albeit kind of stupid.. but it's your viewpoint, and we live in the United States where we're still allowed to have that freedom.

But I do find it funny, and Ironic that the left has continually cried foul about racism.


btw, your idea of "responsible" doesn't change our rights.

Click to expand...

i have never dismissed honest debate. i'm really surprised that you see no racism in confederate flags displayed at obama protests. but as you note, stupid opinions aren't illegal.

liblady said:

yes, they did so legally. why didn't anyone openly carry guns until obama began speaking?

you wear panties? ;-)

Click to expand...

Because up until the Clinton Era they didn't have to worry about their guns being taken away from them.


And like I've speculated before in this thread.. Obama has nominated quite a few anti-gun people to his cabinet / advisors... It makes sense to correlate that they would be working in their interests as well..

Some of them have even gone as far as saying that they would re-enact the '94 AWB... (re: Eric Holder).


So the law abiding citizens of this country displaying that they're not about to let their rights be flushed down the drain by this Administration is actually... pretty on topic / straight forward what their intentions were for being there.

liblady said:

i have never dismissed honest debate. i'm really surprised that you see no racism in confederate flags displayed at obama protests. but as you note, stupid opinions aren't illegal.

Click to expand...

You realize that the confederate flag doesn't signify racism, except in liberal / I'm too intelligent for you opinion?

I see the confederate flag and I think of the Southern States... who fought a civil war with the Northern states, because they wanted to maintain states rights and their laws... and were talking about seceding from the union.

I don't see racism.. but if you do, then that's you.

stevenb said:

Because up until the Clinton Era they didn't have to worry about their guns being taken away from them.


And like I've speculated before in this thread.. Obama has nominated quite a few anti-gun people to his cabinet / advisors... It makes sense to correlate that they would be working in their interests as well..

Some of them have even gone as far as saying that they would re-enact the '94 AWB... (re: Eric Holder).


So the law abiding citizens of this country displaying that they're not about to let their rights be flushed down the drain by this Administration is actually... pretty on topic / straight forward what their intentions were for being there.

Click to expand...

leap away. let me know when your rights are really under assault.

btw, i thought they were attending health care forums? lol!

liblady said:

leap away. let me know when your rights are really under assault.

btw, i thought they were attending health care forums? lol!

Click to expand...

Neat, the anti-war activists were attending whatever speeches Bush held... Way to go! (I could care less, because we still have the first amendment, but.. it goes to prove a point)

My rights as a firearm owner and minority in this country are continually under assault by people such as those who are in office. Just because you chose to ignore it, doesn't mean it's not so.

liblady said:

yes, they did so legally. why didn't anyone openly carry guns until obama began speaking?

Click to expand...

It doesnt matter. They carried them, legally, as is their right.

What's wrong with exercising your rights?

Goobieman said:

It doesnt matter. They carried them, legally, as is their right.

What's wrong with exercising your rights?

Click to expand...

Nothing, as long as we're talking about something they agree with.


I've had this same conversation with my very liberal girlfriend about gay rights... and how Liberals are very fascist / totalitarian when it comes to forcing their opinions down other's throats... it's actually pretty funny.