Hate speech against gun owners shows double standard, page

washingtonexaminer.com...-Y

Fast-forward to late December of 2012, when an American newspaper published an op-ed piece in which the writer calls for the government to declare a perfectly legal organization whose members had broken no laws a terrorist group and make membership in it illegal.

The writer further suggests leaders of the opposition party in Congress be chained to pickup trucks and dragged around until they changed their views to those of the party in power.

As sort of a coup de grace, the writer then suggests that Americans unwilling to surrender their firearms to the government be summarily executed in their homes.

If that sounds like the writer was advocating a totalitarian state with a government that commits mass murder, that's because that's precisely what he was advocating.

Now imagine a supposedly mainstream newspaper runs that column. If some of Limbaugh's sponsors abandoned him, shouldn't the paper's advertisers yank their ads?

The liberal double standards shines brightly as usual. Where was the outrage when liberal reporters began calling for the violent deaths of gun owners? Why are we treated to Democrat party and MSM outrage anytime someone on the right says something the left doesn't like, but then the left can apparently say whatever it wants to? This double standard extends to many different areas to. Just look back at all the policies the media raged about under Bush, which they now give Obama a total pass on. It's disgusting and I'm tired of it.

reply to post by PvtHudson

---

It is called "Divide and Conquer"!!!!!

When are you supporters of either side going to get a clue and quit playing into their manipulations to keep dividing our country????

Yes, the guy who wrote it is a total idiot and moron, but don't ya think that is why guys like him and Al Sharpton, Rush Limbaugh, etc etc are players in the game?

reply to post by PvtHudson

---

lets drag gun owners behind trucks".

I would like to see these cowards try it, I really would.

reply to post by PvtHudson

---

I agree! The problem is it would be political suicide for ANY politician to try and do away with the second. So in the case of what we are now facing in this country, I think we need to worry much more about the writing on the wall for much civil discourse coming soon to a city or town near you, wouldn't you think?

Sure, the progressive left has a ton of useful idiots willing to scream like spoiled children, however, those whom cherish our 2nd ammendment, reguardless of how the MSM paints the picture, is an issue that most definately crosses party lines! I know a whole bunch of Democrats whom own weapons and they are not very happy campers..

Bottom line, reguardless of political affiliations, we have much more in common than you may think....

Do you truely believe that if the day comes we have troops in the streets, that one of the questions they ask is, "Our you a Democrat or Republican?".........Think about it that way and then maybe you will understand how ridiculous the "Dem vs Rep" or "us vs them" issue will totally be irrelevant....

reply to post by Vidpci

---

You can't pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you agree with. You're either pro constitution or against it. There is no middle ground. There never has been.

Is that why so many that are pro 2nd Amendment are the same people who used their 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech and assembly, to try and oppress the 1st Amendment rights of law abiding Muslim Americans, who were looking to build an Islamic community center 6 blocks away from the world trade center site?

Of course I always find it curious, that many of the same people who are the most vocal and ardent supporters of the 2nd Amendment are the same people who are, in my opinion, too immature to hold a firearm to begin with.

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by Vidpci

---

You can't pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you agree with. You're either pro constitution or against it. There is no middle ground. There never has been.

Is that why so many that are pro 2nd Amendment are the same people who used their 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech and assembly, to try and oppress the 1st Amendment rights of law abiding Muslim Americans, who were looking to build an Islamic community center 6 blocks away from the world trade center site?

Of course I always find it curious, that many of the same people who are the most vocal and ardent supporters of the 2nd Amendment are the same people who are, in my opinion, too immature to hold a firearm to begin with.

Hold on, how am I responsible for what those Americans chose to do through baseless fear and intimidation? What you're basically saying here is that just because I support the second amendment that I'm somehow anti Muslim? And because of that, I'm too immature to hold a firearm? This is the question and argument you've taken the time to write up and ask me?

I just want to be sure before I respond.

reply to post by Vidpci

---

Hold on, how am I responsible for what those Americans chose to do through baseless fear and intimidation?

Like many that support (read obsess over) the 2nd Amendment, any perceived threat (real or delusional) is often met with baseless fear and intimidation. In fact through that baseless fear and intimidation supporters of the 2nd Amendment have bullied this country, brow beat the national dialogue, and in the meantime, made firearm manufacturers quite rich in the process.

What you're basically saying here is that just because I support the second amendment that I'm somehow anti Muslim?

Of course not, I am just saying that many that overly support the 2nd Amendment often are.

And because of that, I'm too immature to hold a firearm?

Well, it would appear so, as for some reason you seem to think that everyone must be either pro Constitution or against it, with absolutely no middle ground or shades of grey. Thankfully Many people were unhappy with parts of the Constitution and so worked towards changing it. If they didn't, slavery would still be legal, women and minorities would also still be counted as 3/5ths a person.

This is the question and argument you've taken the time to write up and ask me?

See, if we were to take your either/or scenario at face value, then by your support of the 2nd Amendment, then you must also endorse all of the beliefs of others who also support the 2nd Amendment including but not limited to the extremist xenophobia exhibited by the Islamic center protesters. Because if you don't support some parts of said political spectrum then by your own definition you must be completely against all tenets of that political spectrum's beliefs.

Like many that support (read obsess over) the 2nd Amendment

reply to post by HauntWok

---

Obsess over? Its clearly written. .
Its no different than the 1st amendment or the 4th amendment.. You cant pick and choose which one to support and which one to deny.

reply to post by Juggernog

---

Obsess over? Its clearly written. .

Yes, obsess over, the lack of understanding of the 2nd Amendment by gun rights supporters as you have plainly demonstrated by your parsing of what I have written. Gun rights supporters also parse the 2nd Amendment and omit the first part of that important text.

Often times gun rights supporters oversimplify their argument by simply saying "What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED don't you understand?".

Which my response is always the same, the part where you neglect to mention the well regulated militia being necessary for a free state.

See, being a gun owner also brings with it the responsibility of being part of the militia. It is our greatest defense in this country for the citizenship to be armed. It makes it a very stupid idea for a foreign power to invade this country. As an invading army would not only have to contend with the military and local police forces, but also the private citizenry who include not only rednecks, gang members, faux military morons, hunters, and firearm enthusiasts.

But, instead of realizing the importance of that, gun rights advocates somehow believe that their responsibility is to gun down their fellow countrymen. As this is a country by the people and for the people, taking up arms against the government as gun rights advocates believe is their destiny is of course treason of the highest order against the Constitution and the people of this great nation.

As the intended targets of many of these gun rights advocates are elected officials, gun rights advocates say in a loud clear voice that they do not respect the will of the people and instead want some sort of fascist ideology to dominate this great nation. These people do not respect the will of the people of this nation and instead want to take away the rights of the people and impose their own will upon the citizens.

This is why gun rights advocates are people to be wary of. Self defense is all well and good. But it crosses a distinct line when those same people want to force their will by means of violence on the citizens of this nation they claim to want to free.

2012 Election RIGGED
  Posted 8 days ago with 56 member flags

Attention Right Wing Bashers
  Posted 10 days ago with 48 member flags

Ron Paul to only get video tribute at the RNC.
  Posted 18 days ago with 32 member flags

SMH - Ron Paul supporters equated to Nazis and drug dealers (Ridiculous)
  Posted 18 days ago with 22 member flags

Busted... Republican woman in Obama ad has been a registered Democrat since 2006
  Posted 16 days ago with 19 member flags

Paul Ryan: Rape is just another ‘method of conception’
  Posted 17 days ago with 19 member flags

Bob is a RACIST (because he does not agree with Obama\'s policies)
  Posted 15 days ago with 12 member flags

Deocrats have been in charge since 2006, so why is nearly every thread/News story about GOP?
  Posted 11 days ago with 5 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: