Ironic or not they'll pass up no oportunity for fund raising or vote gleaning. :3some:

Tw never fails; he always manages to say something I curl my lip at. The poor boob actually believes he's "too intelligent" to serve in uniform. Having some experience in this field, I've got news for him he doesn't want to hear: it's better, saner men than tw that put their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor on the line for their society.

Hillary is following her political instincts here. Too bad she's a mix of socialist and sociopath, and her instincts run towards the oppression of anyone not her, and the convenience of herself. We watched her in action during the Clinton Administration, the most anticonstitutional in recent memory simply because the Clintons cared for nothing beyond the convenience of the Clintons (typical of people who get their political education in an effectively one-party state like Arkansas) and we don't trust her any farther than we could throw her across the Hudson.

Whoo boy. I don't even know how to respond to that one other than to say I'm happy that you have come out of your 5-year coma and will be happy to debate you once you read a few newspapers and catch up on current events.http://www.cellar.org/images/moresmilies/right.gif

As for being in uniform. The one advantage of a volunteer army is that you can get to pick your Commander-in-Chief. If what TW says is that at least he will not be forced to fight and possibly die in a pointless foreign conflict like Vietnam which had very little to do with a real threat to the US, than that is a reasonable statment.

A smart commander is one who picks his battles. A bad commander is one who gets himself pulled into bad ones.

Alas, Bush isn't a memory yet.

Thank goodness you don't post much. Your content-free reply to a clever post was very revealing.

Rich, your posturing may impress you, but it cuts no ice with me. I'm wiser than you; I've read your posts, young man. I'll routinely pound you into the ground.

The quickest check for how Constitution-friendly an Administration is is its attitude towards the Second Amendment. (Other libertarians, perhaps after a moment's thought, will tell you the same thing.) A Republic is only a genuine republic when the electorate is powerful. One sort of power translates readily into another sort, and an electorate with the power of life and death widely distributed through it is about as powerful as an electorate is likely to get.

Sooo, as long as everyone can buy a hunting rifle, they are safe from an oppressive government? That is the most simplistic and naive argument I have ever heard.

From what I understand, the Branch Davidians had a very impressive personal armory. It didn't do them very much good.

I hope that when you took your oath, you took it to the entire Constitution and not just the second amendment, which allows for militias, and makes no claims towards the carry rights of civilians.

In a government that only respected the second amendment, the only solace would be the last bullet you saved for yourself.

I will agree that when you get drunk watching Bill O'Reilly, you probably are the wisest living thing in the room. Assuming of course, that you let the cat out.http://www.cellar.org/images/smilies/lol.gif

Do we have to do this again ...

How can basically all the other rights in the bill of rights be individual rights and only the second amendment be considered a collective right?

(and the Branch Davidian thing basically got started because of their exercise of the 2nd Amendment. I happen to think they were a bunch of nutjobs, but I wouldn't have seen autopsy photos of the crispy remains of David Koresh if the ATF hadn't decided to knock on the door that day. Ditto for Randy Weaver. Remind me ... who was in charge of the govt at that point?)

I'm not going to defend the ATF handling of the case because it was atrocious, but the incident didn't occur because the ATF showed up. It occured because the ATF showed up and were shot at.

That being said, I just get annoyed at the focus on the second amendment to the exclusion of the other nine in the Bill of Rights. The idea that if everyone can keep a gun everything will be all right is a silly idea. In fact, if everyone were paying attention, they would note that the insurgents in Iraq are using explosives, not guns. The kinds of guns people can legally own are of limited use against a military force with automatic weapons, body armor, and armored vehicles.

The only intelligent thing UG has said recently is about a 'powerful electorate'. IMO, this is an informed electorate which jealously guards it's rights and pays attention. It is one that refuses to give in to fear and to abdicate it's rights for the illusion of safety.

Now, I may want to pound UG, as he colorfully puts it. But I will happily pound anyone who tries to interfere with his right to express his views, no matter how wrong headed they are. IMO, he is overbearing and obnoxious, but noone can say that he is apathetic and disengaged, like so many people appear to be these days. My view comes thanks to the first amendment, which protects and encourages discussion, debate, disagreement, and argument in as loud and raucous a manner as possible.

The real danger isn't when they come for the guns, but rather when people begin to check themselves before speaking - when the chill of a real or perceived oversight slips into private or public conversation. When that happens, we will have stepped onto the same road as people in the Soviet Union, the Weimar Republic, or any of a number of states that have raised oppresive regimes out of fear or ignorance.

Why are logical responses from richlevy justification for Urbane Guerilla to again exercise testosterone? Some people think with their brains. Others use their balls. It does explain Urbane Guerilla's selective filtering of reality. Is there such a thing as a testosterone haze?

Of course you do. That's the difference between one who uses his brain and one who thinks with his balls. Is this an insult? No. It is how some males - those that also make excellent cannon fodder - do think. Unfortunately Urbane Guerilla traditionally will take insult seeing this post as an attack by his enemies. A classic 'black and white' perspective.

Curious. Urbane Guerilla also advocates a violent response to richlevy. Is that someone using a brain ... or using ...

TW, I'm going to be charitable here and assume that UG meant that he was going to 'pound me into the ground in a debate' and that he wasn't trying to reenact the last scene from West Side Story.

"Fists. Chains. Knives. Zip Guns."http://www.cellar.org/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

Of course, I may be wrong. See me shaking?http://www.cellar.org/images/newsmilies/nervous.gif

He sounds like Nikita Krushchev standing before the UN pounding his shoe on the podium and proclaiming, "We will bury you!" Where is the attitude any different?

Just post your damn post. We'll all decide for ourselves who won. I seldom side with Rich but at least he let's his posts do the talking.

Personally, I think the second ammendment is a personal right, which should be well regulated.