The attack on self defense

[vesper]

While the left would like for us all to give up our guns and rely on the government to protect us, I see that as a stellar reason to get a gun permit. By the time the left gets done "reforming" police departments, you might not have access to an officer for protection.

 

[TurtleDude]

While the left would like for us all to give up our guns and rely on the government to protect us, I see that as a stellar reason to get a gun permit. By the time the left gets done "reforming" police departments, you might not have access to an officer for protection.

I heard G. Gordon Liddy deliver a speech in Sharonville Ohio (just north of Cincinnati) about 23 years ago. Some pillow headed liberal in the audience started whining about guns and GGL noted that guns are "anathema" to big government liberals because people who own firearms are less likely to cede their rights to said government


He was right

 

[haymarket]

I heard G. Gordon Liddy deliver a speech in Sharonville Ohio (just north of Cincinnati) about 23 years ago. Some pillow headed liberal in the audience started whining about guns and GGL noted that guns are "anathema" to big government liberals because people who own firearms are less likely to cede their rights to said government


He was right

No doubt these so called liberal audience members TWENTY THREE YEARS ago were the shock troops from the same war on self defense as that woman in the 22 year old Newsweek article from the OP link. :doh:roll:

btw - the calendar on my wall says its 2015. :roll:

 

[TurtleDude]

No doubt these so called liberal audience members TWENTY THREE YEARS ago were the shock troops from the same war on self defense as that woman in the 22 year old Newsweek article from the OP link. :doh:roll:

btw - the calendar on my wall says its 2015. :roll:

its interesting that you try to argue against an article that discusses a mindset that still exists when you constantly argue about Thomas Jefferson not believing in Natural rights

 

[Gaius46]

You heartless bastard. This is the appropriate compassionate response to being mugged.

Not once did I consider our attackers to be “bad people.” I trust that they weren’t trying to hurt me.

The Hoya – Georgetown University's Newspaper of Record Since 1920I Was Mugged, and I Understand Why - The Hoya - Georgetown University's Newspaper of Record Since 1920

Seriously, every once in awhile I'm reminded just how great the divide can sometimes be between the left and the right.

This person is lucky that things didn't end badly for them. I'm not trusting anyone who points a weapon at me.

Sam Harris made a good point regarding self defense, it doesn't apply here but it's worth remembering just the same. Statistically speaking if a criminal tries to remove you from wherever he encountered you, the odds are that you are going to die.

Self defense is a right.

 

[haymarket]

its interesting that you try to argue against an article that discusses a mindset that still exists when you constantly argue about Thomas Jefferson not believing in Natural rights

Because YOU and others first bring up the claim that the Founders believed in natural rights. When YOU do that it is right and proper for me or anyone else to shoot it down with verifiable evidence as we have done time after time after time.

 

[cpgrad08]

its interesting that you try to argue against an article that discusses a mindset that still exists when you constantly argue about Thomas Jefferson not believing in Natural rights

Because YOU and others first bring up the claim that the Founders believed in natural rights. When YOU do that it is right and proper for me or anyone else to shoot it down with verifiable evidence as we have done time after time after time.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

 

[jet57]

This article in the OP has nothing to do with any sort of "Attack on Self Defense", it's a right-wing hit piece inspired by a paranoid delusion that the liberal Marxist US government is going to take everybody's guns away. Yet another right-wing smack at people who either just don't like guns; a right covered under the constitution, or those advocating common sense approaches to gun violence and proliferation in this country.

PS, Mark Levin is always yelling about Marxist in the government and I defy any right-winger here to show how and where factual Marxism exists anywhere in this country.

 

[haymarket]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

those indeed are the words that Jefferson wrote on a single day of his life. On the other days - in fact - that day also - he owned over 100 slaves which denied them LIBERTY and those precious rights he pretended to give lip service to in that public relations release for the gullible and politically naive.

Are you one of those people who defy the ages old wisdom that ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS?

 

[haymarket]

This article in the OP has nothing to do with any sort of "Attack on Self Defense", it's a right-wing hit piece inspired by a paranoid delusion that the liberal Marxist US government is going to take everybody's guns away. Yet another right-wing smack at people who either just don't like guns; a right covered under the constitution, or those advocating common sense approaches to gun violence and proliferation in this country.

PS, Mark Levin is always yelling about Marxist in the government and I defy any right-winger here to show how and where factual Marxism exists anywhere in this country.

and its based on a 22 year old article from a magazine no less. Truly amazing that the far right can only dig up this nonsense and thats all they got.

 

[TurtleDude]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

But Haymarket claims the founders were lying and were just pretending to support natural rights.

and his verifiable evidence? that slaves were not included and that means the founders didn't really believe that white citizens like them should have the right of assembly, free speech, bearing and keeping arms, etc etc etc

 

[TurtleDude]

and its based on a 22 year old article from a magazine no less. Truly amazing that the far right can only dig up this nonsense and thats all they got.

So in your world, anything that was said more than say a year ago is worthless? HOw old was the article I posted?

 

[TurtleDude]

those indeed are the words that Jefferson wrote on a single day of his life. On the other days - in fact - that day also - he owned over 100 slaves which denied them LIBERTY and those precious rights he pretended to give lip service to in that public relations release for the gullible and politically naive.

Are you one of those people who defy the ages old wisdom that ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS?

your silly attempts to undermine the meaning of the BIll of Rights based on the specious extrapolation that because some of the signers to the DOI did not intend to cover slaves is one of the real gut busters on DP

 

[jet57]

and its based on a 22 year old article from a magazine no less. Truly amazing that the far right can only dig up this nonsense and thats all they got.

It's like Mccartheyism all over again.

 

[TurtleDude]

So in your world, anything that was said more than say a year ago is worthless? HOw old was the article I posted?

BTW the DATE of the article I (that being me, Turtledude) CITED is

May 22, 2015 by Barry Loberfeld

 

[TurtleDude]

It's like Mccartheyism all over again.

LOL that is even more stupid than the claims that the article I cited was 22 years old

 

[haymarket]

So in your world, anything that was said more than say a year ago is worthless? HOw old was the article I posted?

Perhaps you could quote me saying that? Yeah - I know - fat chance of that every happening.

The article you posted gets its big threat to guns from a 22 year old comment from a woman. I do NOT care if it was published this morning because its based on an opinion that is 22 years old and scare mongering and hyperbole built upon that shaky foundation.

 

[haymarket]

LOL that is even more stupid than the claims that the article I cited was 22 years old

You do love your strawmen. :doh:roll: Nobody claimed your article was 22 years old - just your own perversion of what was said.

Lets rewind the tape and look at it from my first post in this thread - #14

I read the article. What "attack on self defense" is it supposedly discussing? The entire article seems to be a reaction to the personal comments from a lady named Barbara Keller who wrote an article in a magazine over twenty years ago.

And this is what constitutes THE ATTACK ON SELF DEFENSE? Not only is that title simply incorrect - it is intentionally inflammatory and hyperbolic designed to whip up the True Believers with all the usual attendant attacks on liberals and other identified enemies.

It is ridiculous in the extreme and serves no purpose other than to reinforce the opinion of gun lobby supporters giving them ample opportunity to rant and rave and throw darts at their ideological enemies.

I guess then it fits in rather excellently here in a gun thread.

I love when this happens!!!!! Perfection. You deliberately, purposely and intentionally misrepresent what was said in the cheap effort to score some points - and then you get caught doing so. Wonderful!!!!!!

 

[TurtleDude]

It's like Mccartheyism all over again.

Yeah defending rights is McCarthyism in your world. Then again, your concept of "centrist" is equally skewed so I am not surprised

 

[haymarket]

It's like Mccartheyism all over again.

yup - Turtle probably has a recent list in his jacket pocket. :mrgreen:

 

[TurtleDude]

yup - Turtle probably has a recent list in his jacket pocket. :mrgreen:

I am not the one trying to deprive people of their constitutional rights

 

[haymarket]

I am not the one trying to deprive people of their constitutional rights

That claim and four dollars will get you a coffee with fancy foam pictures on it.

 

[TurtleDude]

That claim and four dollars will get you a coffee with fancy foam pictures on it.

what does that have to do with this thread other than conceding its your side that wants to limit the rights of honest Americans

 

[haymarket]

what does that have to do with this thread other than conceding its your side that wants to limit the rights of honest Americans

Its telling you in much nicer terms that your self congratulating pat on the back by attacking your enemies and ascribing to them evil motivations is worthless.

 

[TurtleDude]

Its telling you in much nicer terms that your self congratulating pat on the back by attacking your enemies and ascribing to them evil motivations is worthless.

is that anything like someone calling pro constitutionalists "right wing extremists"?