>> ^messenger:

To all the people who cling to their guns as if a "well armed militia" were the only defence against a government bent on violating their civil rights: What is that point when you start to use your guns? How much freedom are you freedom-lovers willing to allow the government to take? How much more of your labour are you willing to allow the government to control before you decide enough is enough and actually start using your firepower against to take it back? What does that defining moment look like? Can you even describe such a situation?
If you can't, then you are causing two major problems. First, all these guns lying around for the never-gonna-happen defence of the country continue to cause all sorts of unnecessary deaths and injuries, far more in the US than any other country in the world. Second, and more importantly, they falsely give you the feeling that as long as you're holding onto that cold steel that the government can't take your liberties away. Fact is, while you were sleeping, cuddled up against that shotgun, the government came and stole your liberties anyway. Your guns are useless.>> ^dannym3141:
This is pretty amazing. Where does the buck stop? In 80 years time are we gonna be talking about this still? Are we happy to be penned animals? Ok so approval ratings are down, people say no one represents them... they're clearly unhappy.
How the royal fuck do you stop the government from tricking you? They control everything. Everyone is having the wool pulled over their eyes. They trick you into thinking they're sorting the banks out. They trick you into thinking the story is bullshit (cue fox news commenting on this issue?).
What's the bottom line, then? What do you do about it? Take to the streets ala Occupy? Do you exercise the right to bear arms, the one clause you were given to prevent the government from taking your freedoms away?
I imagine the answer for at least a few who watch this video is - "Vote for the other party!!! They'll fix it!!!" As though they haven't both been creating this situation.



Damn those guns. Unlocking their own gun cabinets, pointing themselves at people, and pulling their own triggers. How dare they cause all of these deaths.

To all the people who cling to their guns as if a "well armed militia" were the only defence against a government bent on violating their civil rights: What is that point when you start to use your guns? How much freedom are you freedom-lovers willing to allow the government to take? How much more of your labour are you willing to allow the government to control before you decide enough is enough and actually start using your firepower against to take it back? What does that defining moment look like? Can you even describe such a situation?

If you can't, then you are causing two major problems. First, all these guns lying around for the never-gonna-happen defence of the country continue to cause all sorts of unnecessary deaths and injuries, far more in the US than any other country in the world. Second, and more importantly, they falsely give you the feeling that as long as you're holding onto that cold steel that the government can't take your liberties away. Fact is, while you were sleeping, cuddled up against that shotgun, the government came and stole your liberties anyway. Your guns are useless.>> ^dannym3141:

This is pretty amazing. Where does the buck stop? In 80 years time are we gonna be talking about this still? Are we happy to be penned animals? Ok so approval ratings are down, people say no one represents them... they're clearly unhappy.
How the royal fuck do you stop the government from tricking you? They control everything. Everyone is having the wool pulled over their eyes. They trick you into thinking they're sorting the banks out. They trick you into thinking the story is bullshit (cue fox news commenting on this issue?).
What's the bottom line, then? What do you do about it? Take to the streets ala Occupy? Do you exercise the right to bear arms, the one clause you were given to prevent the government from taking your freedoms away?
I imagine the answer for at least a few who watch this video is - "Vote for the other party!!! They'll fix it!!!" As though they haven't both been creating this situation.

This is pretty amazing. Where does the buck stop? In 80 years time are we gonna be talking about this still? Are we happy to be penned animals? Ok so approval ratings are down, people say no one represents them... they're clearly unhappy.

How the royal fuck do you stop the government from tricking you? They control everything. Everyone is having the wool pulled over their eyes. They trick you into thinking they're sorting the banks out. They trick you into thinking the story is bullshit (cue fox news commenting on this issue?).

What's the bottom line, then? What do you do about it? Take to the streets ala Occupy? Do you exercise the right to bear arms, the one clause you were given to prevent the government from taking your freedoms away?

I imagine the answer for at least a few who watch this video is - "Vote for the other party!!! They'll fix it!!!" As though they haven't both been creating this situation.

You're not getting the message. "Rights" are things the government has no authority to restrict. Such things include life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. However, some 'rights' also come with inherent restrictions in which some people are "priveledged" to participate in the process, and some are not. In order for people to have the priveledge of joining in some of these so-called "rights" they must jump hoops. There is nothing new, unusual, or wrong with that.

Guns. You've got the right to bear arms. But you've still got to get a permit, buy a weapon, present identification, and jump a bunch of other hoops to have the priveledge. Voting is no different. You need to be 18, register, etc... There is nothing odd or restrictive in requiring people to have an ID when they show up to vote any more so than having to present an ID to buy gummint' booze at the State Liquor store.

But when foam-at-the-mouth neolibs start talking about voter ID, they love to cop this self-righteous attitude that voting is a "right" that somehow should have zero limitations. Neolib parleyance is that requiring ID is an infringement on the "right" to vote. No. It isn't. It is a hoop you jump through in order to exercise the PRIVELDEGE of voting. Voting as a right is just a 60,000 foot high concept. Sure universal sufferage is a 'right'. But to have the priveledge of exercising that right you must meet the requirements. Duh. People should not vote just because some jerk in a van promises them a pack of Kools on voting day. Nuh uh.

The only people who should have the priveledge of exercising their voting rights are folks who jump through the proper hoops. IMO that means they have at least 3 months of utility bills with the same address, a valid state issued photo ID, a voter registration card, a birth certificate, and can prove they are legal citizens. Anyone who can't supply that information may have the "right" to vote (60,000 foot level concept) but does not have the PRIVELEDGE of exercising that right until they meet the requirements.

^ Is it not something like "the right to bear arms"?

I think that if a police officer is being perfectly reasonable you should be perfectly reasonable back. Because those guys are the good eggs, they're really good, and perhaps a nugget of information - regardless of how insignificant you think it might be - you tell them will end up saving your life, or the life of someone else you know. That, and i want that nice police officer to go home with a nice warm feeling that he got on well with people and that by being a nice police officer he got cooperation from people. I want to reward that behaviour.

Everything that the pedestrian did was legal, but he was an utter asshole.

How many videos of police officers being absolutely legal but utter assholes have been up on this website and hated on by the masses? I put it to you guys that if the roles were reversed, with the cop being legally an asshole, you'd be calling the cop any number of names.

But you're absolutely right. Cops are meant to be above that, and this guy was. Tongue in cheek sarcasm is EXACTLY the sort of shit a police officer should be an expert in giving. It's far better than abusing your power. Far more powerful too.

>> ^gwiz665:

Establishment clause.
He is using his position in state to propagate religion in general, even if it is non-denominational. That is preferential treatment to religion compared to no religion.
He is welcome to do it privately, but he is not allowed to mix his state-job together with his religionism, because he muddies the water that separates church and state.


One--Texas isn't even really a state... Two--does he actually propagate or just ask for a gathering? Propagating would be specifically arguing for a religion of his choice or religion at all. You know, I have prayed in the past. Sometimes it was necessary for me. This, even though I am atheist. It was about the psychological effects (Although when I pray it is a rare thing indeed.)

I know there is no God and I don't pray to one. So if I would, for whatever reason, ask for a prayer day, even for spiritual things, I am not necessarily propagating anything more than a state of mind. That's spiritual to me. My wife breastfeeding was spiritual to me (The first two babies... the third, I was like 'Fuck it.')

Of course Rick Perry is sliding a disingenuous motive in there. But what the heck. He didn't, in this video, advocate for anything inappropriate.

Also, the first amendment is at odds with the establishment clause anyways... And even if it is not--are you suggesting that the literal interpretation should always be followed in the constitution like atheists are demanding are followed in the establishment clause? That's dangerous. "The right to bear arms" has no limitations whatsoever. You couldn't argue that times have changed because the law has not. And before we get into the term militia, I will explain it. Back then it meant, "all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service." Dictionary.reference.com

So yeah, let's err on the side of reason.

Of course, but do you support the right to arm bears? >> ^hpqp:

Nobody but bears should have the right to bear arms.
>> ^blankfist:
Thankfully he was armed.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^hpqp:
Nobody but bears should have the right to bear arms.
>> ^blankfist:
Thankfully he was armed.





/me throws a rotten tomato.

>> ^hpqp:

Nobody but bears should have the right to bear arms.
>> ^blankfist:
Thankfully he was armed.

>> ^hpqp:
If this scenario were to take place in western Europe, where gun owning is the exception and not the rule, the cop would have walked up to the car window, not drawn a weapon. I find it highly irresponsible (and irrational)that some people defend the right to bear arms tooth and nail, but then complain that law enforcement agents are so on edge and trigger-ready.

I don't think the officer's response would be any different if guns were banned. Firstly, he wouldn't have walked up to the window because the suspect wouldn't be inside the car. He'd be standing outside the car, hand in pocket, blatantly ignoring the officer's commands and behaving in a hostile manner. Secondly, as was mentioned in a previous comment, criminals will still have guns regardless of gun laws. That's why they're criminals. They don't follow the law. Statistically, the majority of guns used in crimes were obtained illegally to begin with.

If this scenario were to take place in western Europe, where gun owning is the exception and not the rule, the cop would have walked up to the car window, not drawn a weapon. I find it highly irresponsible (and irrational)that some people defend the right to bear arms tooth and nail, but then complain that law enforcement agents are so on edge and trigger-ready.

Nowhere does it say here that Paul Revere warned the British of anything.
Paul Revere's House

As a matter of fact it very clearly states in his personal letters and deposition of the midnight ride that he did everything that he could to avoid the British.
Paul Revere's Letters
Apparently there were lots of threats by the British soldiers to "blow his brains out". (Read it, you'll see. ;^)

I am not sure how she is making the connection between the British and the right to bear arms. The Declaration of Independence says nothing about bearing arms. It does say lots about the abuses of the American colonists by the British Royalty and about the elimination of taxation without representation. I thought that it was the Constitution that was adopted once independence was achieved that gave the right to bear arms.

Midnight Ride - 1775
Declaration of Independence - 1776
American Revolutionary War ends - 1783
United States Constitution adopted - 1787
Bill of Rights - 1789
2nd Amendment adopted - 1791

This tells me that the right to keep and bear arms was not ratified until 16 years after the midnight ride and was likely not a burning issue at the time.

As I am not a scholar of American history I may be mistaken and would happily defer to anyone who has the right of it.

>> ^eric3579:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/29/opinion/29collins.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212

Gail Collins did an op ed on Bachmann, referencing this moment.

Excerpt:
History is superimportant to Bachmann, who claims that she left the Democratic Party when she was a college senior, after reading “Burr,” Gore Vidal’s caustic historical novel. “He was kind of mocking the founding fathers, and I just thought ‘what a snot,’ ” Bachmann told The Star Tribune. It was, she said, a transformational moment so critical to her worldview that she can still remember what she was wearing. (“A tan trench coat, blue pin-striped shirt, like a tailored shirt, and dress slacks.”)

It’s not everybody who switches political parties over a historical novel, but Bachmann’s vision of the past is the core to her ideology. The men who created the Constitution were perfect heroes, so infallible that they fully understood the right to bear arms would someday include semiautomatic pistols capable of firing 30 bullets in 10 seconds.

Last week, Bachmann was in Iowa, setting off alarm bells about her possible presidential ambitions and delivering a speech in which she claimed that the founding fathers had “worked tirelessly” to eradicate slavery. She then cited John Quincy Adams, who was not a founding father.

"Chuck Cunningham and his employer, the heartless, brainless National Rifle Association have chosen as their mission not guaranteeing the right to bear arms, because the Constitution already guarantees that, but the right to bear sorrow. Indeed they guarantee us the right to bear sorrow so enormous after events like the Tucson massacre... that the blood-soaked lobbyists refuse to allow us."

"Christina Taylor Green is not the last 9 year old girl who will give her life thanks to the work of Chuck Cunningham and NRA lobbyists."