Harmony Central Forums
Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Your 2nd Amendment 'remedies' in action

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse









X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Your 2nd Amendment 'remedies' in action

    Today a lead district attorney in Texas met his end, at the business end of an assault weapon. That's just two months after his assistant was gunned down in similar fashion... and a couple weeks after a Colorado corrections chief also was murdered.

    Is it a new era in the USA??
    ______________________________________________

    "Your own limitations render you incapable of realizing that not everyone is as limited as yourself."

  • #2

    Call me crazy, but I have a hunch that whoever did this isn't your typical law abiding gun owner.

    Comment


    • kissmyace
      kissmyace commented
      Editing a comment

      law abiding people don't murder people


    • BA.Barcolounger
      BA.Barcolounger commented
      Editing a comment

      Hoddy wrote:

      Call me crazy, but I have a hunch that whoever did this isn't your typical law abiding gun owner.


      What kind of stupid assed argument is this? Everyone is law abiding, right up until they break the law.

      There are plenty of gun owners who claim to be law-abiding, but say they aren't go ing to follow any new gun laws.

      Will you still define them as law-abiding?


    • yanktar
      yanktar commented
      Editing a comment

      Hoddy wrote:

      Call me crazy, but I have a hunch that whoever did this isn't your typical law abiding gun owner.


      Not really a great reach of a conclusion.  Once he/she gunned down the prosecutor, by definition he/she wasn't any kind of law-abiding gun owner.


  • #3

    coyote-1 wrote:
    Today a lead district attorney in Texas met his end, at the business end of an assault weapon. That's just two months after his assistant was gunned down in similar fashion... and a couple weeks after a Colorado corrections chief also was murdered.

    Is it a new era in the USA??

    Whole lot of good being armed and prepared did for him.

    MORON LABIA


    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=175852087

    McLelland said he carried a gun everywhere he went and was extra careful when answering the door at his home.

    "I'm ahead of everybody else because, basically, I'm a soldier," the 23-year Army veteran said in an interview less than two weeks ago.



    TWO TERMS BITCHES! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Comment


    • Davo17
      Davo17 commented
      Editing a comment
      So a criminal kills someone and its the constitutions fault. Got it.

  • #4
    Larry: Actually, we do get to choose the laws we follow.

    If you choose to follow a bad and unjust law, go ahead. I'll never feel obliged to do anything that goes against what I believe to be right....and that includes following unjust laws.

    And depending upon the law.....neither would you.

    Comment


    • yanktar
      yanktar commented
      Editing a comment

      mauser wrote:
      Larry: Actually, we do get to choose the laws we follow.

      If you choose to follow a bad and unjust law, go ahead. I'll never feel obliged to do anything that goes against what I believe to be right....and that includes following unjust laws.

      And depending upon the law.....neither would you.

      There are good laws and bad laws. But if you choose to break any law, good or bad, you cannot call yourself "law-abiding".  We do have mechanisms to repeal and remove bad laws that don't require violating them.  However, when a law is removed by a judge deemed "Liberal" then that judge is called an "activist judge".  When a law is removed by a judged deemed "Conservative" then that judge is NOT called an "activist judge" regardless of whether the law either overturned is a good law or a bad law.

      But if you break laws, you cannot call yourself "law abiding", regardless of your justification for breaking those laws.


    • larry50
      larry50 commented
      Editing a comment

      mauser wrote:
      Larry: Actually, we do get to choose the laws we follow.

      If you choose to follow a bad and unjust law, go ahead. I'll never feel obliged to do anything that goes against what I believe to be right....and that includes following unjust laws.

      And depending upon the law.....neither would you.

      Then you are a very poor citizen, who fails to recognize the duties and obligations of citizenship.  If our society left matters to individuals such as yourself to decide unilaterally what laws are just and constitutional (which you will follow) and those laws which you believe are not (which you will not follow), organized society would simply fall apart.

      You don't get to decide under our system.  If you think a law is bad or unjust, then you petition your represenatives to change it or the courts to strike it down.  The decision is not yours to make alone.


  • #5
    Yank: The purpose of law is to protect the rights of the people. When laws are enacted that do not have as their purpose the protection of the rights of the people, and instead serve to violate the rights of the people.....the people are in no way obliged to obey them.

    To call yourself law-abiding in such a scenario is to essentially be a sheep being led to the slaughter.

    And in such a scenario, law-abiding I will not be.

    Comment


    • Hoppy Shimko
      Hoppy Shimko commented
      Editing a comment

      mauser wrote:
      Yank: The purpose of law is to protect the rights of the people. When laws are enacted that do not have as their purpose the protection of the rights of the people, and instead serve to violate the rights of the people.....the people are in no way obliged to obey them.

      To call yourself law-abiding in such a scenario is to essentially be a sheep being led to the slaughter.

      And in such a scenario, law-abiding I will not be.

      Actually, they are. You can stomp your feet like a baby, but you aren't that special to not be held to the same law as everyone else. Your politics are flawed. American citizens addresses the government through the vote, not your silly temper tantrum.


    • yanktar
      yanktar commented
      Editing a comment

      mauser wrote:
      Yank: The purpose of law is to protect the rights of the people. When laws are enacted that do not have as their purpose the protection of the rights of the people, and instead serve to violate the rights of the people.....the people are in no way obliged to obey them.

      To call yourself law-abiding in such a scenario is to essentially be a sheep being led to the slaughter.

      And in such a scenario, law-abiding I will not be.

      Actually, if you break the law you are NOT law-abiding.  You MAY be morally correct, and you may even deliberately break the law as an act of civil disobedience.  But you are not law-abiding.

      The Civil Rights Movement of the 50s and 60s were on a moral quest, one I believe was a 100% justifiable.  But while they engaged in non-violent civil disobedience, they didn't claim they were law-abiding, merely non-violent.

      "Law-Abiding" is not one of those words where the component words have nothing to do with word, like "Butterfly". It specifically means obeying the law.

      Either embrace that you plan to engage in civil disobedience, or merely passive scofflawing or be law-abiding.  You cannot be both, by definition.


  • #6
    Hoppy: think whatever you like.

    Comment


    • TheNord
      TheNord commented
      Editing a comment
      lol.

      I love the republidance on this subject. When that "second amendment remedies" meme was circulating, I asked "who are you gonna shoot?". No answers. The only thing the idiots would say was that laws that are "unconstitutional" don't apply.

      Of course, the next question is "who decides what is constitutional?" In our system, its the supreme court.

      The end result? A bunch of whiny stooges stamped their feet and threatened violence when things didn't go their way.

      But.....if someone does shoot someone, they are criminals, and not to be associated with the whiny stooges who stamped their feet and only threatened violence.

      sheesh...morons wont get the irony.




  • #7
    Larry: Do whatever your conscience leads you to do.

    I will as well.

    Comment


    • larry50
      larry50 commented
      Editing a comment

      mauser wrote:
      Larry: Do whatever your conscience leads you to do.

      I will as well.

      Well mine tells me to follow the law. 

      You do whatever you want.   That's your preferred form of government. 


  • #8
    Will: Jury nullification is a great thing.

    Comment


    • larry50
      larry50 commented
      Editing a comment

      mauser wrote:
      Will: Jury nullification is a great thing.

      Then let's just eliminate the jury trial system.  Why waste the time?


  • #9
    Pink: I'm afraid I never signed a contract obliging myself to obey any unjust law.

    Comment


    • pink freud
      pink freud commented
      Editing a comment

      mauser wrote:
      Pink: I'm afraid I never signed a contract obliging myself to obey any unjust law.


      Apparently you don't even know what the Social Contract is.


    • Just Me
      Just Me commented
      Editing a comment

      mauser wrote:
      Pink: I'm afraid I never signed a contract obliging myself to obey any unjust law.

      at least be honest in your communication.

      I'm afraid I never signed a contract obliging myself to obey any law that i perceive to be unjust.

       

      Its not up to you to claim a law is unjust. All you can offer is your opinion.

       

       

       


  • #10
    Larry: Then you really have no conscience at all, since you would apparently follow any law regardless of what it was.

    Comment


    • LithiumZero
      LithiumZero commented
      Editing a comment

      mauser wrote:
      Larry: Then you really have no conscience at all, since you would apparently follow any law regardless of what it was.

      Don't follow laws you don't like then. Just dont cry foul about it when it doesn't work out for you.


    • larry50
      larry50 commented
      Editing a comment

      mauser wrote:
      Larry: Then you really have no conscience at all, since you would apparently follow any law regardless of what it was.

      We are a nation of laws, not men.  Your view is that I get to do whatever I feel like, including whether to abide by laws I find "unjust", so leave me alone.  And by the way, I get the only vote on whether a law is "unjust" and therefore not worthy of following.

      That won't work if you are really interested in a civil society.  


  • #11
    Pink: Yeah....that's it.

    Comment


    • #12
      Just: I have been.

      Comment


      • pink freud
        pink freud commented
        Editing a comment

        mauser wrote:
        Just: I have been.

         

        Such as?


      • Just Me
        Just Me commented
        Editing a comment

        mauser wrote:
        Just: I have been.

        No, you stated that a "law is unjust" as if it were a fact.

        It is not a fact, it is just your opinion and should be stated as such.

         

        Communication 101. 


    • #13
      Lithium: Has nothing to do with liking or not liking a law.

      Has to do with whether or not the law in question is just or unjust. Hopefully you're not unable to determine that on your own.

      Comment


      • Just Me
        Just Me commented
        Editing a comment

        mauser wrote:
        Lithium: Has nothing to do with liking or not liking a law.

        Has to do with whether or not the law in question is just or unjust. Hopefully you're not unable to determine that on your own.

        I used to teach English to special ed kids. They were usually pretty straight on fact vs opinion.

        Many of you conservative posters here - well, not so much.


    • #14
      Just: What I said to Lithium holds true for you as well.

      Comment


      • Hoppy Shimko
        Hoppy Shimko commented
        Editing a comment
        Mauser, you are like Paul revere, firing those warning shots and bells and telling the British they weren't gonna be takin' our arms.

    • #15
      Larry: Blah blah blah....

      You're a conscience-free worshipper of the state.

      Good for you.

      Comment


      • larry50
        larry50 commented
        Editing a comment

        mauser wrote:
        Larry: Blah blah blah....

        You're a conscience-free worshipper of the state.

        Good for you.

        Better than an anarchist such as yourself.  



    Working...
    X