ARMED march on Washington

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
bluefrog

bluefrog

Go Blazers, GO!
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
1,964
Likes
81
Points
48
Link
Second Amendment March is a national event to take place in April, 2010 in Washington, D.C. and other cities across America. The purpose is to remind the U.S. Government that it is our right to keep and bear
arms, and that right shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...
Why? Is the 2nd Amendment really at stake here? Aren't guns illegal in D.C.?

At first it seems like it could be a benign group of people gathering to celebrate the 2nd Amendment but I did some digging and found this:

WELL REGULATED AMERICAN MILITIAS !

You can't arm a mob and expect to do anything peacefully. It's all or nothing.

So, maybe just scrap the peacefully part?
 
Last edited:
They are just trying to provoke. Once again the high school bullies try to bully their way again. Put it this way. If one of those dumb frackers screws up, opens up and gets a large segment of their group gunned down, I won't lose sleep over it.
 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7301262.stm


The nine justices were hearing a challenge to one of the toughest gun laws in the nation - a virtual ban on private handgun ownership in the city of Washington DC, passed in 1976.

A Beretta pistol

The case was brought in the name of security guard Dick Heller, a District of Columbia resident who carries a gun at work and wants to be able to keep it at home for self-defence. He and his supporters argued that the ban violated the rights of DC citizens.

City officials said the ban was necessary to keep gun violence down, and argued that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution protected a right tied to service in a militia, not an individual's right to bear arms.

The challenge to the ban was initially rejected, but a federal appeals court later overturned that judgement.

As a result, District of Columbia vs Heller came before the Supreme Court, the first time it has ruled on the Second Amendment since 1939.
Click to expand...
 
This sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. It escalates the protest in the eyes of the police, thus they will up their level of security. It could turn ugly if someone loses their cool. I hate this idea.
 
When I lived in Oregon, our house was broken into and I shot the "fine young gentleman" who was scaring the heck out of my family and trying to steal what I had worked hard to buy. Sadly, however, I didn't kill him. I say sadly because a little over a month later that same "fine young gentleman" went into a house 3 streets over from mine and killed a father and mother in front of their children when he was trying to rob their home. Luckily for everyone else, this "fine young gentleman" was caught and locked away. Asked why he chose that house, and why he killed those people he reponded with this. "The last house I broke into I was shot. No warning, no nothin, just shot. I didn't go back to that house cause I didn't want to get shot no more, so I went to another house that didn't have no guns." How did you know they didn't have any guns, asked the officer. "I ain't sayin, but I found out they didn't, so I went there." Why did you shoot them, asked the officer. "Because I needed their stuff, and I told them not to try and stop me, but they didn't listen."


I guess my point is that owning a gun might have saved my families lives, and if I hadn't been so nervous, a gun might have saved the lives of two parents doing nothing but trying to protect their family.


Guns = Good

People = Bad
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
City officials said the ban was necessary to keep gun violence down, and argued that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution protected a right tied to service in a militia, not an individual's right to bear arms.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
My issue with this commonly made statement is that the only hands it keeps handguns out of are those of law-abiding citizens.
 
Mediocre Man said:
When I lived in Oregon, our house was broken into and I shot the "fine young gentleman" who was scaring the heck out of my family and trying to steal what I had worked hard to buy. Sadly, however, I didn't kill him. I say sadly because a little over a month later that same "fine young gentleman" went into a house 3 streets over from mine and killed a father and mother in front of their children when he was trying to rob their home. Luckily for everyone else, this "fine young gentleman" was caught and locked away. Asked why he chose that house, and why he killed those people he reponded with this. "The last house I broke into I was shot. No warning, no nothin, just shot. I didn't go back to that house cause I didn't want to get shot no more, so I went to another house that didn't have no guns." How did you know they didn't have any guns, asked the officer. "I ain't sayin, but I found out they didn't, so I went there." Why did you shoot them, asked the officer. "Because I needed their stuff, and I told them not to try and stop me, but they didn't listen."


I guess my point is that owning a gun might have saved my families lives, and if I hadn't been so nervous, a gun might have saved the lives of two parents doing nothing but trying to protect their family.


Guns = Good

People = Bad
Click to expand...

What kind of gun do you own MM?
 
I have no problem with responsible gun owners. I think they are actually really cool things. Firing a gun is a fun, exhilarating experience.

I do have a problem with a large group of people who bring loaded weapons to protests. No one is advocating a repeal of the 2nd amendment. No one is proposing new restrictions on guns. No one is going to take their guns away. It's a silly stupid march for people who believe in the "Marxist, Nazi, Muslim, Socialist Conspiracy"
 
Mediocre Man said:
When I lived in Oregon, our house was broken into and I shot the "fine young gentleman" who was scaring the heck out of my family and trying to steal what I had worked hard to buy. Sadly, however, I didn't kill him. I say sadly because a little over a month later that same "fine young gentleman" went into a house 3 streets over from mine and killed a father and mother in front of their children when he was trying to rob their home. Luckily for everyone else, this "fine young gentleman" was caught and locked away. Asked why he chose that house, and why he killed those people he reponded with this. "The last house I broke into I was shot. No warning, no nothin, just shot. I didn't go back to that house cause I didn't want to get shot no more, so I went to another house that didn't have no guns." How did you know they didn't have any guns, asked the officer. "I ain't sayin, but I found out they didn't, so I went there." Why did you shoot them, asked the officer. "Because I needed their stuff, and I told them not to try and stop me, but they didn't listen."


I guess my point is that owning a gun might have saved my families lives, and if I hadn't been so nervous, a gun might have saved the lives of two parents doing nothing but trying to protect their family.


Guns = Good

People = Bad
Click to expand...

link?
 
I can't help but think at some point this Tea Party/Birther/Gun Rights movement is going to go too far and we're going to have another event akin to the Oklahoma City bombing. There just seems so much festering rage, and the Republican Party seems to go out of its way to stoke it.

Just look at the home page for GOP.com. The Pelosi caricature makes her look like one of the minions of hell. (The contrast in tone with Democrats.org is stunning.)

Republicans better hope if something truly explosive happens, it happens after the midterms. Because if it doesn't, I think the blowback against the party will be immense.
 
mook said:
I can't help but think at some point this Tea Party/Birther/Gun Rights movement is going to go too far and we're going to have another event akin to the Oklahoma City bombing. There just seems so much festering rage, and the Republican Party seems to go out of its way to stoke it.

Just look at the home page for GOP.com. The Pelosi caricature makes her look like one of the minions of hell. (The contrast in tone with Democrats.org is stunning.)

Republicans better hope if something truly explosive happens, it happens after the midterms. Because if it doesn't, I think the blowback against the party will be immense.
Click to expand...




It says "fire Pelosi", thus the flames. It's not the Republicans fault that she looks the way she does. As far as the contrast, I think you are reading way too much into it.


The midterms can't come fast enough.
 
Mediocre Man said:
I have a few actually.

I have a glock .45, a 9mm luger, Remington 1187 with a short stock.
Click to expand...

Glock 21? Which one did you use in the attempted robbery? I have a Glock 21 and it's okay. They've had some problems historically.
 
Gotta love the other videos on that website:

"Antichrist Illuminati Obama New World Order Agenda"

"We Want America Back" (who is "we", and from whom?)

"For My Christian Friends"
 
Natebishop3 said:
Glock 21? Which one did you use in the attempted robbery? I have a Glock 21 and it's okay. They've had some problems historically.
Click to expand...




Yes, I do have the 21. I was thinking about getting a 30 as well, but I thought it might be overkill....as it were.

We only had the luger at the time of the robbery, now my wife has that in a bed safe, and I have the glock in one.

We live in one of the safest neighborhoods in the country, but you never know when some idiot is gonna think your stuff should be his.
 
Mediocre Man said:
It says "fire Pelosi", thus the flames. It's not the Republicans fault that she looks the way she does. As far as the contrast, I think you are reading way too much into it.
Click to expand...

lol. So are they really planning on barbecuing her?

As a guy who's built a number of websites and thousands of ads over the past 15 years, I get it. I also get that its got a pretty blatant apocalyptic undertone to it. (Honestly, I was kind of surprised how amateurish the animation is. Low-res photo of her, bad line art of her lower body in the second image, flames don't really match anything. Looked like it'd be more at home in a 1999 geocities page.)

I like how the GOP logo switches to different faces every time you hit refresh. Pretty cool effect. (Incidentally, I got 4 white women, one black woman, a black guy, and then a white guy. 10 more refreshes and I got another white guy. Yup, that's pretty much the GOP.)
 
bluefrog said:
Exactly.

Seriously though, aren't there laws against this in D.C.?
Click to expand...

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2008/06/scotus_dc_gun_law.html

SCOTUS: DC Gun Law

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court today overturned a 32-year-old District of Columbia law limiting private gun ownership, for the first time expressly extending the Constitution's Second Amendment to private citizens.

That ruling is also a split decision with respect to where the public stands on these issues.

In a recent Washington Post poll, 72 percent of all Americans said they believe individuals have gun rights under the Second Amendment, that such protections are not limited to "militias." Twenty percent thought the constitutional guarantee covers "only the rights of the states to maintain militias."
 
bluefrog said:
No one is advocating a repeal of the 2nd amendment. No one is proposing new restrictions on guns. No one is going to take their guns away.
Click to expand...

Many politicians, groups, and "lower courts for hire" have advocated "repealing" the 2nd Amendment by attempting to re-define it to mean government military members only.

There are literally hundreds of well-organized groups proposing new restrictions on guns.

Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of law-abiding citizens have already had their guns taken away, including every non-government employee who lives in Washington DC.
 
mook said:
I can't help but think at some point this Tea Party/Birther/Gun Rights movement is going to go too far and we're going to have another event akin to the Oklahoma City bombing. There just seems so much festering rage, and the Republican Party seems to go out of its way to stoke it.

Just look at the home page for GOP.com. The Pelosi caricature makes her look like one of the minions of hell. (The contrast in tone with Democrats.org is stunning.)

Republicans better hope if something truly explosive happens, it happens after the midterms. Because if it doesn't, I think the blowback against the party will be immense.
Click to expand...

1. Nearly as many Dems as Reps own guns and ALL who cherish America's "government of, by, and for the people" concept support the 2nd Amendment. Can't have either without the other.

Only a tiny minority of gun owners take part in demonstrating, or joining support/lobbying groups, but a large majority would be willing to kill anyone who tries to take their guns away. I figure we're about 10-15 years away from the day citizens start defending their homes and families from government-conducted home invasions designed to dis-arm the populace.

2. Gun rights have little to do with mandating small government and nothing at all to do with outlawing abortion.

3. Many Dems agree with the Reps that Pelosi is indeed Satan's Mistress and would love to see her go away permanently. She represents to me everything wrong with the Democratic Party. I voted for Obama for President, not Pelosi. She never got the memo.
 
Denny Crane said:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2008/06/scotus_dc_gun_law.html

SCOTUS: DC Gun Law

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court today overturned a 32-year-old District of Columbia law limiting private gun ownership, for the first time expressly extending the Constitution's Second Amendment to private citizens.

That ruling is also a split decision with respect to where the public stands on these issues.

In a recent Washington Post poll, 72 percent of all Americans said they believe individuals have gun rights under the Second Amendment, that such protections are not limited to "militias." Twenty percent thought the constitutional guarantee covers "only the rights of the states to maintain militias."
Click to expand...

First time in my life I've seen 72% pro/20% anti referred to as a split decision. :crazy:

Overwhelming majority seems a more accurate phrase.
 
The very same folks who brought you this anti-American "law" immediately cranked out this racist substitute for citizen control before the ink had even dried on the SCOTUS ruling:

The most controversial new program designed to deter crime is a system of police checkpoints in neighborhoods particularly affected by violence. The checkpoints, introduced in June 2008, have only been used thus far in the Trinidad neighborhood of Northeast Washington. The program operates by stopping cars entering a police-designated area; officers then turn away those individuals who do not live or have business in the neighborhood. Despite protests by residents, the MPD claims the checkpoints to be a successful tool in preventing violent crime.[21] In October 2008, a federal court judge found that the checkpoints do not violate residents' constitutional rights and refused to order a stop to the program.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top