Gun Toting Liberals

[someguy]

YouTube - Gun Toting Liberals

[Dark Shadows]

I am a peaceful person and have never wanted to own a gun myself. But I've recently considered it because of personal security issues. The old argument that law enforcement is here to protect us from people with guns simply does not fly when uniformed personnel will not protect you because of the color of your skin, your neighborhood, or your income bracket.

Oglala Sioux picked up their guns at Wounded Knee and Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in the 70's because of the tribe's aversion to uranium mining on their land and resulting law enforcement misconduct. It was a no win situation because a population as small and isolated as ours will never come out on top, but you can't knock us for trying.

If you care to read up on the reasons for this gunfight, view this video read up here:

American Indian Movement - Bing Video

Aim, Pine Ridge & the FBI

[Hotspring 44]

FYI, liberals have 2nd amendment rights too.

[Valley Oak]

Someguy, are you in real life as cute as your avatar? Because if you are, then I'd like to go out on a date. I'm buying. How about the John Ash restaurant in northern Santa Rosa?

Oh, I took a hunter's safety class when I was in high school. I saw a WWII machine gun operated right in front of me. It was a surprise to see a weapon like that in action, close up. However, it didn't look or sound like what I was used to in the movies, and the rounds fired off slowly.

Have you ever shot anything like that? I'd like to know and if so, I would really enjoy your giving me a demonstration.

YouTube - Gun Toting Liberals

[Hotspring 44]

Someguy, are you in real life as cute as your avatar? Because if you are, then I'd like to go out on a date. I'm buying. How about the John Ash restaurant in northern Santa Rosa?

[someguy]

Someguy, are you in real life as cute as your avatar? Because if you are, then I'd like to go out on a date. I'm buying. How about the John Ash restaurant in northern Santa Rosa?

No. You want Sir Patrick McGoohan.

[Hotspring 44]

Maybe about 40 - 45 years ago.

14 January 2009 17:18:09
Ian Mckellen - The Prisoner Star Patrick Mcgoohan Dies At 80

No. You want Sir Patrick McGoohan.

[Valley Oak]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I think I'll settle for "someguy." I am willing to bet that someguy is a lot cuter than he believes he is. And with all of this talk about guns, I'm also willing to bet that someguy has a collection of them. I'd really like it if someguy showed me his guns and ammo.

Maybe about 40 - 45 years ago.

14 January 2009 17:18:09
Ian Mckellen - The Prisoner Star Patrick Mcgoohan Dies At 80

[Debunker]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I think I'll settle for "someguy." I am willing to bet that someguy is a lot cuter than he believes he is. And with all of this talk about guns, I'm also willing to bet that someguy has a collection of them. I'd really like it if someguy showed me his guns and ammo.

Have you told Someguy you're a guy too?

[Hotspring 44]

I apologize for being so off topic. This (hopefully) is going to be my last off topic post on this thread.
Actually, the photo that someguy has for Avatar looks more like
Ricardo Montalban from Fantasy Island to me than Sir Patrick McGoohan.

Photos of Ricardo Montalban

Ricardo Montalban Photos - IMDb

[someguy]

Hmm.... Any thoughts on the content of the video??? Im starting to think none of you actually watched it, which is a bummer since it is quite thought provoking.

[Valley Oak]

It is thought provoking, which is why I have already replied to this thread a few times!
;0)

Hmm.... Any thoughts on the content of the video??? Im starting to think none of you actually watched it, which is a bummer since it is quite thought provoking.

[Valley Oak]

Someguy is already somewhat aware of my gender identity. (And I don't think he actually believed that I was Anne Hathaway.)

Have you told Someguy you're a guy too?

[Valley Oak]

You know, it's funny how some people are photogenic, especially actors. And everything depends on how you take a photo. It is funny to see how another person (Montalban) can appear to be more like McGoohan than McGoohan himself!

I congratulate someguy on carrying on my innovation of using famous movie stars as a source for avatars.

I apologize for being so off topic. This (hopefully) is going to be my last off topic post on this thread.
Actually, the photo that someguy has for Avatar looks more like
Ricardo Montalban from Fantasy Island to me than Sir Patrick McGoohan.

Photos of Ricardo Montalban

Ricardo Montalban Photos - IMDb

[Hotspring 44]

Hmm.... Any thoughts on the content of the video??? Im starting to think none of you actually watched it, which is a bummer since it is quite thought provoking.

That video clip in essence, is what I have been trying to tell to my left-leaning friends for many years now.
My feeling is that they don't want to hear it.

Then there is the Nancy Pelosi factor. She's one of those politicians that think only cops and the military, and people belonging to the National Guard reserves have the right to keep and bear arms. Also that there is nothing in the Constitution that says or implies every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms to form a militia to guard against an unconstitutionally derived government. I have heard her say that almost verbatim.

One thing I did not see specifically mentioned in this video is the fact that there are already laws against having certain types of (guns and ammunition) firearms (arms).

It is true that the country has been fractured (by certain factions that have used media structures funded by multinational corporations) and divided to the point where things like the Patriot Act for example which already pretty much killed the viability of the people to enforce the spirit and letter of the law of the US Constitution, and also all but destroyed the meaning of the Bill of Rights.

I noticed at the end of the video clip that that person advocated for people to go and buy a gun/s.
I dare say without sufficient amounts of ammunition, training or the proper kinds of guns I am not so sure that at this point in time that would be much of a remedy in the usage of them (availability factor) for the purpose of reinstating our constitutional liberty and or civil rights.

I should mention that Iraq was far more armed than the American people (as individual citizens) are or ever will be in the foreseeable future.

I think our best bet is to completely do away with (by way of legislation); corporate personhood, remove the Federal Reserve System from private hands, and totally get rid of any (private; like banks, for example) institutions (or situations like that) that are “too big to fail”, which would put the citizens in jeopardy of being in danger in any way; Militarily, financially, or debt big enough to create a situation of mass indentured servitude.

The other thing I think most of my left-leaning friends would absolutely disown me for is that, I think it has become so dangerous at this point in time for our liberties that unless they reinstate the draft there won't be enough people that would be able to have a chance of successfully being able to; in a combat situation, survive let alone actually being able to win against corporate funded mercenaries.

I think if my left-leaning (anti-gun) friends knew that I was actually advocating reinstating the draft, they would disown me or maybe even have fantasies of getting a gun and shooting me!... …LOL!

If I was young enough, (which I am not) and you were to ask me if I would join the military; my answer would be no.
But if there were a draft and I was called upon to go, I would go, not run away.

["Mad" Miles]

I watched the video and found it to contain a cogent and persuasive argument. But, I came up with the following back in the early eighties when I was entertaining fantasies of being a revolutionary:

When the forces of order (by this I mean police, military, etc.) have a monopoly on violence, it is suicide to resist with violence.

Mass non-violent resistance is, as I see it, the only way to change things for the better, or at least trying to prevent them from getting worse. Easier said than done, I know. But one major advantage of non-violent but active resistance, is that it allows us to maintain the moral high ground. An important position to hold in the court of public opinion.

But with oil gushing from the bottom of the gulf of Mexico, threatening the entire marine ecosystem of the gulf (and the livelyhoods of countless Cajun, Vietnamese and other fishermen, shimpers and oystermen, the seafood culture of Southern Louisiana, especially New Orleans, and the tourist income from all those beaches in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida and Mexico), and eventually the Caribbean and Atlantic coasts, add to that Israel trying to make the entire world even more pissed off at their shit, in unprecedented and increasingly destabilizing ways (not that the area has been very stable for decades!?), I don't know what packing hardware is going to do to help.

One thing urban street gangs have going for them is that most of their grunts aren't great marksmen. Bad as the death and maiming toll has been, if they ever learn to really shoot accurately, with serious urban combat skills, things are going to get a whole lot worse....

Keep in mind that the author of the video is trying to sell his books, so his apocryphal doomsday rhetoric, while probably sincere and well intended, also has a commercial purpose.

As we were so graphically reminded here recently, the criminal drug turf wars in Mexico aren't exactly a great endorsement for an armed citizenry. Although if I was selling guns in the American Southwest, I'm sure my profit margins would have been greatly helped.

No solutions here, just random observations,

[LenInSebastopol]

OK. The guy's an idiot walking backwards into the future.
The mainstream media has NOT convinced "most people" that the world is "left & right"; that is what they try to do and want "most people" to believe but most do not.

Dark Shadows, law enforcement is NOT there to PROTECT you....ever notice they come AFTER the incident is over? Courts, laws, and all else in this country have never been there to protect you from criminals and personal safety. They are suppose to be there to insure that the rights you have, given outside the gov't, are protected. But not from criminals. Personal safety is your job.

His notion rings true regarding "neo-cons" being FALSE conservatives, but that ship has sailed while many still wish to believe that the neo-cons were "conservative". That whole phenomena was started in the 70's by disenfranchised members of the Democratic Party, some of which were in the SDS while in college in the 60's. And that's a fact!

Now, here's the hard part: the Second Amendment was created "for tyrannical gov't", which means shooting gov't folks, officials, bureaucrats, and cops, if the time came. That is flat out what it was put in there for, and the pretty language of "tyrannical government" aside, it is as simple as that! The glitch around that is that we can vote most all of them out, but that was when gov't was small. Can't do that too well anymore!

His jumping to why we don't understand Rwanda, Cambodia and other modern genocide is as stupid as he; it is not race as to why we don't "get it", but the horror of it all. We can't imagine a million dead in a hundred days! We can't....and that is why we don't understand, not because folks are of a different "race" or brown skin...the very saying of it reveals his issue with race!

The real pisser for me is his notion that few knew Adolph registered then confiscated all guns; everyone in this forum and most in the country know that fact....why does he make such a stupid statement, as if none know?
He continues on with "6 million Jews" being killed. Why do people not recall the Poles, Catholics, Union organizers, Gypsies, and the OTHER 6 million, for a total of 12M? What is a reason for doing so?, and it's not only him. But that is not the end of it: he fails to mention the Warsaw Ghetto Jews holding off the mighty German Army with a .38 revolver and a rifle! For 30 days!

Glad I got that off my chest. BUT a very real reason that I wish to comment is to inform folks, like Dark Shadows and others: you do have a right to purchase a gun. Don't. If you do, please understand that a gun is an extension of your hand. When you use your hand you don't think about doing so, and a gun is like and similar in manner. If you do decide to purchase a gun, then you must take training with it, and often. You would not purchase a car and not know how to use it safely, properly and treat it with care. Same with this. If you decide to purchase, the above will be the best free advise you'll get all week.

Finally the litany at the end of this video is BS.... He mentions Stalin came from the left and Hitler came from the right....
NO!
BOTH CAME FROM THE SAME SOCIALIST BENT, that being left. Both were leftist; freedom under a Constitution protecting the individual from gov't is to the right!
Both monsters came from gov't having total power, the individual having none, while the state was always being the correct way for citizens to go!

No one is going to use a gun due to George Bush, the Patriot Act, the email reading, phone tapping, etc, so his litany at the end is simply drama, but his point, though presented as an idiot, has more than a ring of truth: people are free because people have a right to protect themselves from gov'ts that becomes totalitarian and excessive in force. No one you know, or ever will know, will be kidnapped and taken to another country & tortured by this gov't, so his "bogey man" rhetoric is drama drivel.
Oh, and if you do get a gun, get a good one.
I apologize to those here that already know the above, but after viewing and request for comments, I am free at last!

[someguy]

I watched the video and found it to contain a cogent and persuasive argument. But, I came up with the following back in the early eighties when I was entertaining fantasies of being a revolutionary:

When the forces of order (by this I mean police, military, etc.) have a monopoly on violence, it is suicide to resist with violence.

Mass non-violent resistance is, as I see it, the only way to change things for the better, or at least trying to prevent them from getting worse. Easier said than done, I know. But one major advantage of non-violent but active resistance, is that it allows us to maintain the moral high ground. An important position to hold in the court of public opinion.

But with oil gushing from the bottom of the gulf of Mexico, threatening the entire marine ecosystem of the gulf (and the livelyhoods of countless Cajun, Vietnamese and other fishermen, shimpers and oystermen, the seafood culture of Southern Louisiana, especially New Orleans, and the tourist income from all those beaches in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida and Mexico), and eventually the Caribbean and Atlantic coasts, add to that Israel trying to make the entire world even more pissed off at their shit, in unprecedented and increasingly destabilizing ways (not that the area has been very stable for decades!?), I don't know what packing hardware is going to do to help.

One thing urban street gangs have going for them is that most of their grunts aren't great marksmen. Bad as the death and maiming toll has been, if they ever learn to really shoot accurately, with serious urban combat skills, things are going to get a whole lot worse....

Keep in mind that the author of the video is trying to sell his books, so his apocryphal doomsday rhetoric, while probably sincere and well intended, also has a commercial purpose.

As we were so graphically reminded here recently, the criminal drug turf wars in Mexico aren't exactly a great endorsement for an armed citizenry. Although if I was selling guns in the American Southwest, I'm sure my profit margins would have been greatly helped.

No solutions here, just random observations,

Hello sir,

I agree 100% that nonviolent civil disobedience is the greatest catalyst for change. What makes you think that because people have guns they want violent resistance? I don't think that is what the video described at all. The video is clearly talking only about guns as defense against tyrannical governments. But to me, there is one other good reason for the people to be armed if they so desire. Lets just think about this for a second. Could we ever get rid of all the guns? Will governments ever give up their guns? Obviously not, we can't even get rid of nukes....... Will the criminals give up their guns? Most likely not. So whos left? You and I, Law abiding non violent citizens. If the non violent, law abiding citizens are unarmed, they are at the mercy of the criminals and police (who sometimes are criminals themselves). If a madman should happen to open fire on a school campus, or a shopping mall, and no one else is armed, they have a much smaller chance of being able to stop him before people are wounded.

I'm not sure what gave you the impression that the guy is selling a book. StormCloudsGathering is his YouTube channel.

As far as the situation with the drug war in Mexico, its the criminals, not the citizenry, who are armed. Mexico has very strict gun control laws. I think if the citizens were armed, the drug cartels would have a much more difficult time kidnapping people and beheading them and whatnot.

["Mad" Miles]

Good Afternoon Sirrah,

I didn't say people shouldn't own guns, or that gun owners "want" to use violence to resist injustice. Although the potential for violent resistence is pretty much the assumption behind this entire discussion. You're reading too much into my reply.

I did say that even if "we" had guns, using them against a tyrannical government loaded for bear (and how often is a dictatorship lightly armed?) is suicide. And that resistance to injustice is best kept non-violent.

I didn't acknowledge, but do now, that many non-violent movements for social change have had violent ancillaries; the Indian anti-colonial movement of Gandhi (Nationalist attacks on British troops, sabotage of trains resulting in the death of military, police, train workers and innocent civilians, it wasn't all Salt Marches, Hunger Fasts, etc. although the popular history would have us think so), the American (U.S.) Civil Rights movement (The Deacons for Defense and Justice). History is complicated and nothing is pure.

As for gun-totin' regular folks deterring crime... Maybe, things are complicated, but it's more a myth than a reality. Pretty much a canard of the pro-gun rights movement that hasn't been born out in the past. It wasn't called the "Wild" West for nothing.

As for the Mexican Drug Turf War(s), most, but not all, of the people being kidnapped, tortured, murdered and dissected for public display are other gangsters, or the police and military (in many cases they're one and the same, i.e. a gangster who is in the police/military). They're all pack'in. This is not to say that innocent civilians aren't caught in the cross fire, or are targeted as family members of participants in the war, but they're not the primary targets, and they don't make up the bulk of the victims. So your example / analogy in this case has no relationship to reality.

I advocate the right to gun ownership, contingent on mandatory training and licensing. I also oppose registration, so how to combine that with licensing is a bit of a conundrum.

I do not support the right to openly carry. We've been there, done that. Modernity, even with all its flaws, is better. I support restrictions on assault and other automatic weapons, even if I harbor fantasies of owning "one of everything" from a MAC 10 to an M60.

As for whether the guy is selling books or not, he's certainly advocating a specific point of view. One that gets more inflated, hyperbolic and unconnected to likely reality towards the end of his argument. If he's not marketing anything for profit, I sit corrected.

Gun control / rights is a huge conundrum, nobody's figured out a good compromise. Just like with undocumented workers / immigrants, job creation in a post-industrial corporate consumer society based on services and clear, simple, even handed internet chat board moderation, just to name a few.

These issues and many others will remain with us for the rest of our lives and into future generations. That is unless we, the planet or the universe don't kill us all first!

Like I said before, no solutions here, just observations.

I prithee good-day Sirrah,

[Weiser]

Miles,

If ever a civilian population currently needed the right to bear arms, the Mexican people do now. It isn't just innocent people dying in a cross fire over drugs. For example if you want to sell your house you will have to pay a commision to more than just the real estate agent. A substancial one at that. If you want to sell tamales on the street the kind of "business license" fees you pay can save your life. Assasin is considered a viable career choice.

The mayor of Ciuadad Juarez lives in El Paso, Texas. So does the Mexican government official in charge of documenting the civil rights violations in Mexico we are talking about.

Corruption is rampant. The Mexican people can't trust the police or the Army. If I was Mexican I'D LIVE IN EL PASO!!!!! The only way I'd stay is if I was armed to the teeth.

I think that we as Americans take our freedom for granted. I don't think that it is a coincidense that when the founding fathers finished passing the first amendment to the constitution that the second piece of business was the right for citzens to keep and bear arms. You need back up.

I'm more afraid of what is going on in Mexico than in Afgahnistan.

Mark



.

Good Afternoon Sirrah,

I didn't say people shouldn't own guns, or that gun owners "want" to use violence to resist injustice. Although the potential for violent resistence is pretty much the assumption behind this entire discussion. You're reading too much into my reply.

I did say that even if "we" had guns, using them against a tyrannical government loaded for bear (and how often is a dictatorship lightly armed?) is suicide. And that resistance to injustice is best kept non-violent.

I didn't acknowledge, but do now, that many non-violent movements for social change have had violent ancillaries; the Indian anti-colonial movement of Gandhi (Nationalist attacks on British troops, sabotage of trains resulting in the death of military, police, train workers and innocent civilians, it wasn't all Salt Marches, Hunger Fasts, etc. although the popular history would have us think so), the American (U.S.) Civil Rights movement (The Deacons for Defense and Justice). History is complicated and nothing is pure.

As for gun-totin' regular folks deterring crime... Maybe, things are complicated, but it's more a myth than a reality. Pretty much a canard of the pro-gun rights movement that hasn't been born out in the past. It wasn't called the "Wild" West for nothing.

As for the Mexican Drug Turf War(s), most, but not all, of the people being kidnapped, tortured, murdered and dissected for public display are other gangsters, or the police and military (in many cases they're one and the same, i.e. a gangster who is in the police/military). They're all pack'in. This is not to say that innocent civilians aren't caught in the cross fire, or are targeted as family members of participants in the war, but they're not the primary targets, and they don't make up the bulk of the victims. So your example / analogy in this case has no relationship to reality.

I advocate the right to gun ownership, contingent on mandatory training and licensing. I also oppose registration, so how to combine that with licensing is a bit of a conundrum.

I do not support the right to openly carry. We've been there, done that. Modernity, even with all its flaws, is better. I support restrictions on assault and other automatic weapons, even if I harbor fantasies of owning "one of everything" from a MAC 10 to an M60.

As for whether the guy is selling books or not, he's certainly advocating a specific point of view. One that gets more inflated, hyperbolic and unconnected to likely reality towards the end of his argument. If he's not marketing anything for profit, I sit corrected.

Gun control / rights is a huge conundrum, nobody's figured out a good compromise. Just like with undocumented workers / immigrants, job creation in a post-industrial corporate consumer society based on services and clear, simple, even handed internet chat board moderation, just to name a few.

These issues and many others will remain with us for the rest of our lives and into future generations. That is unless we, the planet or the universe don't kill us all first!

Like I said before, no solutions here, just observations.

I prithee good-day Sirrah,

["Mad" Miles]

Miles,

...
It isn't just innocent people dying in a cross fire over drugs.
...
I'm more afraid of what is going on in Mexico than in Afgahnistan.

Mark

Mark,

Dee, dee, dee, dee, dee, dee, dee, dee, deee....

Sorry, couldn't help myself!

Um, on your first excerpted quote above, I believe if you look at my reply to Someguy again, you'll see I didn't write that.

I sympathize with your fears about Mexico being more acute than the worries you have about the violence in Afghanistan. Although they're pretty much different issues. We, the U.S.A., haven't invaded Mexico, recently that is.

If everyone was packing in Mexico, I don't think that would improve matters. In fact I think it would just escalate the slaughter, of innocents and guilty alike.

I agree with your general assessment of the travails faced by everyday Mexicans.

By the bye, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, aka The Bill of Rights, were passed ensemble. Not one after the other. And they were only passed because the common people of the new country refused to support the main part of the Constitution unless they got those guaranteed rights. Many of the men we refer to as the "founding fathers" were not too pleased about that.


Why isn't anyone promoting ownership and open carry of bladed weapons? In my fantasy life, if everyone carried around a quality kitana, scimitar, rapier, sabre or some such, we'd all be able to g(l)oriously defend ourselves, and those deserving yet unable to do so.

And the collateral damage would be less costly, as sharpened edges don't travel as far, or as indiscriminately, as bullets! With the advantage that the training required to be proficient, let alone expert, would really improve our national health.

Course the resultant gore, guts and lopped off extremities might prove a problem. I mean, we can't afford to pick up and dispose of road kill, how we gonna get a society of warriors to clean up the messes they leave behind?

[LenInSebastopol]

And the collateral damage would be less costly, as sharpened edges don't travel as far, or as indiscriminately, as bullets! With the advantage that the training required to be proficient, let alone expert, would really improve our national health.
Course the resultant gore, guts and lopped off extremities might prove a problem. I mean, we can't afford to pick up and dispose of road kill, how we gonna get a society of warriors to clean up the messes they leave behind?

A new gov't program?
And aside from the clean medical one coming down the line?