Armed Citizens of Oak Harbor Washington Force Officials to "Back Down"

page: 2
18
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 09:16 PM
link   
This is the reason for the 2nd amendment. The only power the people have to ensure the government respects our rights comes through our weapons. Without physically challenging the lawbreaking politicians, they will continue to get away with all they get away with, plus more. People forget that the power of politicians is given by the people. We are not the ones who have to answer to them, but they have to answer to us. The only way to ensure things stay this way, following the Constitution, is to have firepower superior to that of the government.




posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by LFN69

Originally posted by 3n19m470
The message stands the same. If you want to be around people who are willing to stand up for what's right, come on up to Washington State!


We have our corruption and psychopaths just like everyone else, but overall we are a good bunch!

.and the definition of right is?


The right to keep and bear arms is what this thread is about. If you've read the thread at all, I would think that was obvious.

No it wasnt.
It was about the, alleged, march on a council meeting to defend a man who was going to be thrown out of said meeting because he was carrying a gun.
The story was false and, clearly, not about the right to bear arms but whether you could take a firearm into a Council meeting. I would suspect that it would be the same question whether it were a School or Wall Mart.
The sensationalistic reporting of that story was the point of my posts.
Firstly, exactly who are the good guys? The automatic assuption is that if the very people we vote in to represent us are not doing our bidding we have the right to "force" them to do it or "force" them out of office.
Who do those people who "stand up for whats right" represent? ALL of the American people? The majority? The minority?
Again, the point of my post was to ellicit some degree of cognant response rather than to trot outt the usual old stuff about the rights to bear arms etc etc.
Im curious as to know whether those that protect that freedom would be happy if the American people were given a vote as to whether they wanted that or any other part of the constitution changed or amended, in other words, give the power back to the people so that it is the WHOLE of the country who decides and not just those most vocal.
Opinions?
edit on 10-2-2013 by LFN69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
This is the reason for the 2nd amendment. The only power the people have to ensure the government respects our rights comes through our weapons. Without physically challenging the lawbreaking politicians, they will continue to get away with all they get away with, plus more. People forget that the power of politicians is given by the people. We are not the ones who have to answer to them, but they have to answer to us. The only way to ensure things stay this way, following the Constitution, is to have firepower superior to that of the government.

Ever thought of voting?
Its much safer than getting a vigilante mob together to march on your Town hall/Police headquarters/ blah de blah.
You will NEVER have more firepower than "them" and you will never have enough people willing to actually die for the cause.
Take a look at Egypt and Tunisia for how you think your style of Government for the people would pan out.
People voted your Senators into power, your Govenors, your presidents, your councillors YOU voted them in!!!!
If you dont like what they are doing you campaign to vote them out! Better still put YOURSELF up for election and get the support of all those that agree with your beliefs.
Thats democracy, going mob handed to storm government buildings is not because you havent had the consent of the majority.
You cannot force or take without consent.
That makes you as bad as the scum you want to remove, doesnt it.
edit on 10-2-2013 by LFN69 because: .



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by LFN69
No it wasnt.
It was about the, alleged, march on a council meeting to defend a man who was going to be thrown out of said meeting because he was carrying a gun.
The story was false and, clearly, not about the right to bear arms but whether you could take a firearm into a Council meeting. I would suspect that it would be the same question whether it were a School or Wall Mart.
The sensationalistic reporting of that story was the point of my posts.
Firstly, exactly who are the good guys? The automatic assuption is that if the very people we vote in to represent us are not doing our bidding we have the right to "force" them to do it or "force" them out of office.
Who do those people who "stand up for whats right" represent? ALL of the American people? The majority? The minority?
Again, the point of my post was to ellicit some degree of cognant response rather than to trot outt the usual old stuff about the rights to bear arms etc etc.
Im curious as to know whether those that protect that freedom would be happy if the American people were given a vote as to whether they wanted that or any other part of the constitution changed or amended, in other words, give the power back to the people so that it is the WHOLE of the country who decides and not just those most vocal.
Opinions?
edit on 10-2-2013 by LFN69 because: (no reason given)


Uhm actually the event where the armed man was asked to check his firearm was completely separate from the event where the group of armed citizens came to speak up for their 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms in the local park. Yes they were motivated to come and speak out due to the previous event where the man was asked to check his weapon or leave but that was on a separate day and ultimately the reason for their presence at city council was to abolish the unconstitutional law preventing them from being armed in the park, so either way I don't know how you got the idea that this wasn't about the 2nd amendment because it's quite obvious that it is. Even if the reason they showed up was so they could be armed in city council it would still be about the right to bear arms... just at city council meetings lol. Also you act like the United States is a pure democracy, when really it was founded as a constitutional republic. This means that no matter how many people want to vote away your rights they cannot due to the god given rights represented in the constitution. So no matter how many people like yourself wish others cannot bear arms they would not have the democratic ability of voting those rights away. Also we vote in politicians who we think would best carry out their oath the constitution, not so they can enact any law they want no matter how much we or they believe its right. So when they betray that oath we as their employers have a right and duty to stop them in their tracks when they try to take away the rights bestowed to us by our creator, not by our government. Just remember that the next time you accuse those who wish to preserve their rights as being confrontational trouble makers.
edit on 10-2-2013 by LiberteaWarrior because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by LiberteaWarrior

Originally posted by LFN69
No it wasnt.
It was about the, alleged, march on a council meeting to defend a man who was going to be thrown out of said meeting because he was carrying a gun.
The story was false and, clearly, not about the right to bear arms but whether you could take a firearm into a Council meeting. I would suspect that it would be the same question whether it were a School or Wall Mart.
The sensationalistic reporting of that story was the point of my posts.
Firstly, exactly who are the good guys? The automatic assuption is that if the very people we vote in to represent us are not doing our bidding we have the right to "force" them to do it or "force" them out of office.
Who do those people who "stand up for whats right" represent? ALL of the American people? The majority? The minority?
Again, the point of my post was to ellicit some degree of cognant response rather than to trot outt the usual old stuff about the rights to bear arms etc etc.
Im curious as to know whether those that protect that freedom would be happy if the American people were given a vote as to whether they wanted that or any other part of the constitution changed or amended, in other words, give the power back to the people so that it is the WHOLE of the country who decides and not just those most vocal.
Opinions?
edit on 10-2-2013 by LFN69 because: (no reason given)


Uhm actually the event where the armed man was asked to check his firearm was completely separate from the event where the group of armed citizens came to speak up for their 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms in the local park. Yes they were motivated to come and speak out due to the previous event where the man was asked to check his weapon or leave but that was on a separate day and ultimately the reason for their presence at city council was to abolish the unconstitutional law preventing them from being armed in the park, so either way I don't know how you got the idea that this wasn't about the 2nd amendment because it's quite obvious that it is. Even if the reason they showed up was so they could be armed in city council it would still be about the right to bear arms... just at city council meetings lol. Also you act like the United States is a pure democracy, when really it was founded as a constitutional republic. This means that no matter how many people want to vote away your rights they cannot due to the god given rights represented in the constitution. So no matter how many people like yourself wish others cannot bear arms they would not have the democratic ability of voting those rights away. Also we vote in politicians who we think would best carry out their oath the constitution, not so they can enact any law they want no matter how much we or they believe its right. So when they betray that oath we as their employers have a right and duty to stop them in their tracks when they try to take away the rights bestowed to us by our creator, not by our government. Just remember that the next time you accuse those who wish to preserve their rights as confrontational trouble makers.

So, if EVERY American was allowed to vote on ammending or changing the Constitution, you would agree with that as a democratic right?
Oh, my opinion on the right to bear arms is not relevant. My curiosity surrounds the apparent belief held by some that some sort of armed struggle may be neccessary and SHOULD happen if the powers do not do as they are told to.
My question, yet to be fully answered, is whether those who shout loudest, like yourself ,who has stated that "we as their employers have a right and duty to stop them in their tracks when they try to take away the rights bestowed to us by our creator, not by our government." have a clear mandate to carry this out?
So, are you saying that you are in the majority on this? How are you sure that any proactive action that you feel would be appropriate would have the consent of a CLEAR MAJORITY of Americans?
Now you have addressed part of my post but not the most salient part of it which is very clear. There is an undercurrent of feeling that, maybe, people need to take over, by force if neccessary, and remove the people who have not been representing them in the way that they were supposed to.
Does that idea have the consent of the American people or would an armed struggle be carried out whether the MAJORITY of Americans agreed or not?



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by LFN69
So, if EVERY American was allowed to vote on ammending or changing the Constitution, you would agree with that as a democratic right?
Oh, my opinion on the right to bear arms is not relevant. My curiosity surrounds the apparent belief held by some that some sort of armed struggle may be neccessary and SHOULD happen if the powers do not do as they are told to.
My question, yet to be fully answered, is whether those who shout loudest, like yourself ,who has stated that "we as their employers have a right and duty to stop them in their tracks when they try to take away the rights bestowed to us by our creator, not by our government." have a clear mandate to carry this out?
So, are you saying that you are in the majority on this? How are you sure that any proactive action that you feel would be appropriate would have the consent of a CLEAR MAJORITY of Americans?
Now you have addressed part of my post but not the most salient part of it which is very clear. There is an undercurrent of feeling that, maybe, people need to take over, by force if neccessary, and remove the people who have not been representing them in the way that they were supposed to.
Does that idea have the consent of the American people or would an armed struggle be carried out whether the MAJORITY of Americans agreed or not?


Oh I answered your question you just don't like the answer lol. Since you have trouble understanding I will repeat, since the United States is a constitutional republic it does NOT matter whether a CLEAR MAJORITY consents to the rights outlined in the constitution or not. The beauty of it all is that no matter how large the majority you cannot vote away a minorities rights, so it doesn't matter whether the majority of Americans agree or not. The reason for this is that the founders understood that rights are not granted by governments but rather by our creator, so whether people like you like it or not everyone has an EQUAL claim to those rights. Also regarding the mandate you ask of I'm pretty sure the American oath of allegiance is pretty clear and I quote, "I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic". Does that ring a bell?



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by LiberteaWarrior

Originally posted by LFN69
So, if EVERY American was allowed to vote on ammending or changing the Constitution, you would agree with that as a democratic right?
Oh, my opinion on the right to bear arms is not relevant. My curiosity surrounds the apparent belief held by some that some sort of armed struggle may be neccessary and SHOULD happen if the powers do not do as they are told to.
My question, yet to be fully answered, is whether those who shout loudest, like yourself ,who has stated that "we as their employers have a right and duty to stop them in their tracks when they try to take away the rights bestowed to us by our creator, not by our government." have a clear mandate to carry this out?
So, are you saying that you are in the majority on this? How are you sure that any proactive action that you feel would be appropriate would have the consent of a CLEAR MAJORITY of Americans?
Now you have addressed part of my post but not the most salient part of it which is very clear. There is an undercurrent of feeling that, maybe, people need to take over, by force if neccessary, and remove the people who have not been representing them in the way that they were supposed to.
Does that idea have the consent of the American people or would an armed struggle be carried out whether the MAJORITY of Americans agreed or not?


Oh I answered your question you just don't like the answer lol. Since you have trouble understanding I will repeat, since the United States is a constitutional republic it does NOT matter whether a CLEAR MAJORITY consents to the rights outlined in the constitution or not. The beauty of it all is that no matter how large the majority you cannot vote away a minorities rights, so it doesn't matter whether the majority of Americans agree or not. The reason for this is that the founders understood that rights are not granted by governments but rather by our creator, so whether people like you like it or not everyone has an EQUAL claim to those rights. Also regarding the mandate you ask of I'm pretty sure the American oath of allegiance is pretty clear and I quote, "I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic". Does that ring a bell?

Only alarm bells fella.
If what you say is cast in stone then, I suppose the taliban can also claim to have their ideology handed down directly from their creator too.
Im just wondering at what point the creator decided that every body should be allowed to carry firearms.
Im also wondering why its assumed that the only some understood the wishes of the creator and others clearly didnt.
Oh, dear!!!!



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Good for that Veteran in standing up for his rights.....

But now he's on a Government list and will soon receive a package saying he was accidentally overpaid VA Disability and he's got 30 days to pay back the Government $70,000 or face collections and jail.

Putting your name out there like that gets you "attention".

After they've dealt with him that council will ban firearms. Just watch and wait.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Been lurking last couple of days but had to sign in again because of this thread.

As an unarmed Brit I say Hooray. I was a happy bunny when I saw the video of the previous meeting. I wish in Britain we had these kinds of people and communities that are willing to stand up together and be counted. We've had too many hundreds of years of being subjects with or without privileges, that we can't drag ourselves away from our TVs. The TVs we go out and buy and then pay the government every year for the privilege of being allowed to use them.

My favourite quote from the link:

"if the fact that citizens who are merely exercising their right to keep and bear arms intimidates city officials, then they need to look within to determine why the rights of the people are so intimidating to them."

So few people in Britain would even be able to understand this concept let alone vocalize it.

Also I don't understand how so many people on ATS seem to not understand the dangers of democracy over constitution. Constitutions and bills of rights are meant to be founding documents that enshrine in law inalienable rights for everyone and limits upon coercive powers of corporations and state. They protect against the abuses that tend to occur in democracies where the populus has been manipulated by the wealthy few.

As others have said I too hope this begins to start getting repeated across the US.

GO Oak Harbor!!

Britain would be in a much healthier state with less hatred of others if we had xeroxed those wonderful Amercican documents and implemented them over here immediately.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by merkins


Been lurking last couple of days but had to sign in again because of this thread.

As an unarmed Brit I say Hooray. I was a happy bunny when I saw the video of the previous meeting. I wish in Britain we had these kinds of people and communities that are willing to stand up together and be counted. We've had too many hundreds of years of being subjects with or without privileges, that we can't drag ourselves away from our TVs. The TVs we go out and buy and then pay the government every year for the privilege of being allowed to use them.

My favourite quote from the link:

"if the fact that citizens who are merely exercising their right to keep and bear arms intimidates city officials, then they need to look within to determine why the rights of the people are so intimidating to them."

So few people in Britain would even be able to understand this concept let alone vocalize it.

Also I don't understand how so many people on ATS seem to not understand the dangers of democracy over constitution. Constitutions and bills of rights are meant to be founding documents that enshrine in law inalienable rights for everyone and limits upon coercive powers of corporations and state. They protect against the abuses that tend to occur in democracies where the populus has been manipulated by the wealthy few.

As others have said I too hope this begins to start getting repeated across the US.

GO Oak Harbor!!

Britain would be in a much healthier state with less hatred of others if we had xeroxed those wonderful Amercican documents and implemented them over here immediately.

Utter bollocks.
Never heard of Wat Tyler? The Poll tax riots? The Suffragette movement? The Jarrow March?
Incredibly, AFAIK,apart from the peasants revolt, the backlash against " the state" was carried out without a gun being fired,
Incredible really, you could actually change things for the better without a single firearm,just the will and the organization and BELIEF that you could make things better, make the leaders listen and make change for the better.
Maybe you want to read up a little on your countries history before wetting your knickers at the idea that the mere hint of violence is the best way forwards.
Wat tyler was leading the peasants revolt hundreds of years before the founding fathers even bothered to find America.
Revolt and fighting for your rights is not a new concept, is it.
Dont like the way we do things in our country? Emigrate.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by LFN69

Originally posted by schuyler

The right to keep and bear arms is what this thread is about. If you've read the thread at all, I would think that was obvious.

No it wasnt.
It was about the, alleged, march on a council meeting to defend a man who was going to be thrown out of said meeting because he was carrying a gun.


Yes, it was. I'll keep this short. The man was NOT "going to be thrown out of said meeting." That's pure fantasy you made up. The Council had ALREADY affirmed the man's right to carry IN COUNCIL MEETINGS the month before. He was not at all at risk. This was a demonstration of support for the second amendment. There was nothing "alleged" about it. there is no evidence that the original guy was even there at the second meeting.

It's ironic. A few miles north of Oak Harbor some folks want to build a coal terminal. THOUSANDS of people showed up to protest the transport of coal and everyone said it's their right to protest. Transporting coal by rail is hardly a constitutional issue. Less than 200 people show up on a second amendment issue and you see all these folks getting upset and claiming they are intimidating the council. In fact, they were SUPPORTING the previous vote of the council.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by LFN69

Originally posted by schuyler

The right to keep and bear arms is what this thread is about. If you've read the thread at all, I would think that was obvious.

No it wasnt.
It was about the, alleged, march on a council meeting to defend a man who was going to be thrown out of said meeting because he was carrying a gun.


Yes, it was. I'll keep this short. The man was NOT "going to be thrown out of said meeting." That's pure fantasy you made up. The Council had ALREADY affirmed the man's right to carry IN COUNCIL MEETINGS the month before. He was not at all at risk. This was a demonstration of support for the second amendment. There was nothing "alleged" about it. there is no evidence that the original guy was even there at the second meeting.

It's ironic. A few miles north of Oak Harbor some folks want to build a coal terminal. THOUSANDS of people showed up to protest the transport of coal and everyone said it's their right to protest. Transporting coal by rail is hardly a constitutional issue. Less than 200 people show up on a second amendment issue and you see all these folks getting upset and claiming they are intimidating the council. In fact, they were SUPPORTING the previous vote of the council.

No, I didnt make it up, please reread the OP and the link,THEY made it up, I merely quoted the original OP.
The thread was created on the basis that the Vet was going to be thrown out of the meeting because he was carrying a gun. Now, in fairness to you, you set the record straight,however, its a bit unfair to accuse me of creating the fantasy when I only quoted to OP as the reasoning for the thread.If the story had unfolded as the original truth this thread would have been a bit pointless, right? Whether it was or was not constitutional is neither here nor there in so much that it is clear the story is a mountain made of a mole hill and that the story wasnt about the right to bear arms it was about the right to bear arms in a council meeting.
Again, this would be like discussing whether you or i should be able to walk through a school corridor carrying a loaded weapon.
The last point you make is, possibly, the most salient.
The irony is not lost on me, people will consider local issues more important than the right to bear arms. This whole idea of the masses marching on those in power and forcibly removing them, if neccessary, just aint gonna happen fella, you know that, i know that, unfortunately some other posters on this thread live in a fantasy World.
Thousands of people really couldnt give a sh*t if a vet was prevented from carrying a firearm in a council meeting, in the great scheme of things there are many other issues local to those people let alone issues affecting the country that are more important to them. When you look at recent events that have unfolded id be unsuprised if the masses were sick to the back teeth of the whole gun debate, period.
Look, Ive locked horns in another thread with a bone head that did the average American absolutely no favours whatsoever, so utterly blinkered, one tracked and sarcastic he was.
Its actually nice to debate with somebody who doesnt use sarcasm as a form of "intelligence" and puts their point across clearly.
You are smarter than the average bear and i respect that, irrespective if we agree or not because not everybody will agree about everything.
Go well.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by LFN69
 


I think we've seen enough of your posts to realize what your agenda here is. You can talk yourself purple in the face, but the fact is the Oak Harbor City Council voted in favor of the second amendment--twice. It's a done deal and was from the very beginning.

Fortunately, you lose.
edit on 2/10/2013 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
reply to post by LFN69
 


I think we've seen enough of your posts to realize what your agenda here is. You can talk yourself purple in the face, but the fact is the Oak Harbor City Council voted in favor of the second amendment--twice. It's a done deal and was from the very beginning.

Fortunately, you lose.
edit on 2/10/2013 by schuyler because: (no reason given)

Sir, I have no agenda because Im am merely a casual observer from afar.
Surely, you worked that one out?
The content of this thread will have absolutely no bearing on my life whatsoever, however, ive very much enjoyed seeing all the side stepping to my posts.
Game, set and match to me.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by LFN69
Utter bollocks.
Never heard of Wat Tyler? The Poll tax riots? The Suffragette movement? The Jarrow March?
Incredibly, AFAIK,apart from the peasants revolt, the backlash against " the state" was carried out without a gun being fired,
Incredible really, you could actually change things for the better without a single firearm,just the will and the organization and BELIEF that you could make things better, make the leaders listen and make change for the better.
Maybe you want to read up a little on your countries history before wetting your knickers at the idea that the mere hint of violence is the best way forwards.
Wat tyler was leading the peasants revolt hundreds of years before the founding fathers even bothered to find America.
Revolt and fighting for your rights is not a new concept, is it.
Dont like the way we do things in our country? Emigrate.


Oh so your from the UK lol it all makes sense now... No wonder you don't believe in inalienable rights you have none yourself. Coming from a country where they have cameras to spy on their citizens on every corner, where you can get arrested for free speech, where you can be jailed for self defence, where it's the 4th most repressive electronic police state in the world, where you have to pay a fee just to watch your own TV in peace, and where only criminals and government (tyrants) are armed and able to defend themselves... And boy could I go on but I'll spare you the embarrassment. No wonder you don't like the idea of freedom you've never experienced it for yourself lol. If anything I'd say you guys have more things to fight for yet you criticize those that don't bow down to abusive government authority. As if I'm gonna sit here and listen to you lecture us on our bill of rights considering you come from one of the most authoritarian police states in the western world... Opinions? rofl
edit on 11-2-2013 by LiberteaWarrior because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by LiberteaWarrior

Originally posted by LFN69
Utter bollocks.
Never heard of Wat Tyler? The Poll tax riots? The Suffragette movement? The Jarrow March?
Incredibly, AFAIK,apart from the peasants revolt, the backlash against " the state" was carried out without a gun being fired,
Incredible really, you could actually change things for the better without a single firearm,just the will and the organization and BELIEF that you could make things better, make the leaders listen and make change for the better.
Maybe you want to read up a little on your countries history before wetting your knickers at the idea that the mere hint of violence is the best way forwards.
Wat tyler was leading the peasants revolt hundreds of years before the founding fathers even bothered to find America.
Revolt and fighting for your rights is not a new concept, is it.
Dont like the way we do things in our country? Emigrate.


Oh so your from the UK lol it all makes sense now... No wonder you don't believe in inalienable rights you have none yourself. Coming from a country where they have cameras to spy on their citizens on every corner, where you can get arrested for free speech, where you can be jailed for self defence, where it's the 4th most repressive electronic police state in the world, where you have to pay a fee just to watch your own TV in peace, and where only criminals and government (tyrants) are armed and able to defend themselves... And boy could I go on but I'll spare you the embarrassment. No wonder you don't like the idea of freedom you've never experienced it for yourself lol. If anything I'd say you guys have more things to fight for yet you criticize those that don't bow down to abusive government authority. As if I'm gonna sit here and listen to you lecture us on our bill of rights considering you come from one of the most authoritarian police states in the western world... Opinions? rofl
edit on 11-2-2013 by LiberteaWarrior because: (no reason given)

No sh*t Sherlock, how did ya guess i was a limey?
Im glad at least one American is upholding the wide held belief that the average Yank is as thick as sh*t, so, well done you!!
Right, your ridiculous post. Firstly we have rights, probably as many as you, however, we dont neccessarily jump up and down and cry like babies demanding that they be upheld because they already are. geddit?
The "cameras" you talk about are CCTV cameras that, amazingly enough, arent trained into the bedrooms of citizens but trained onto shopping malls, high streets and "social" housing estates. We even have mobile ones and, guess what? They are designed to reduce crime. They work too.
Most of us are not overly aware of them day to day because, guess what? The law abiding citizen has nothing to fear!! CCTV has been used to convict people whos crimes have ranged from Murder to grafitti "tagging" so, the average Brit hasnt got a problem with them.
Ive not lectured anybody on YOUR bill of rights, ive asked questions that, clearly, dont want to be answered. I am merely curious as to why and not how.
Yes, some people have been jailed for self defence but, guess what? People protested, the press protested, the media protested and the Government changed the law. THAT is democracy.
Authoritarian Police states?

Genuinely, you are stupid, arent you!
In this thread it was lamented that so many people would take to the streets to protest at, IIRC, a coal yard being built in their town but precious few joined the march on the Town hall. Still you dont get it, do you?
You resolutely stick to an archaic consitution that is 400 years old and was created by people that had absolutely no idea that 400 years later it was going to destroy you.
The right to bear arms 400 years ago would have been welcomed by the law abiding American, the right to defend them selves from Cattle rustlers, Robbers, Injuns and Jessie James. What would they think now?
Armed patrols in school corridors, 6 year old children being massacred and one of the highest gun realted death rates in the World.
You all now walk around like Clint Eastwood such is your fear that somebody may pull a gun on you, something we dont even think about here.
Your murder rate is horrific, your gun crime is astonishing, ours isnt and we are perfectly capable of defending ourselves as we have done long before America was discovered.
You confuse constitution with free and democratic process. Constitutions do not govern people, they are not unshakeable they are not cast in stone.People have the right to a voice.
You are cowards, hiding behind the constitution and deny your people the RIGHT to choose.
Take a look at this.
en.wikipedia.org...
Am I embarrassed for my country? No
You should be though, infact you should be utterly ashamed that your country is swimming in the cesspool with all those third world nations, well done.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by LFN69
No sh*t Sherlock, how did ya guess i was a limey?
Im glad at least one American is upholding the wide held belief that the average Yank is as thick as sh*t, so, well done you!!
Right, your ridiculous post. Firstly we have rights, probably as many as you, however, we dont neccessarily jump up and down and cry like babies demanding that they be upheld because they already are. geddit?
The "cameras" you talk about are CCTV cameras that, amazingly enough, arent trained into the bedrooms of citizens but trained onto shopping malls, high streets and "social" housing estates. We even have mobile ones and, guess what? They are designed to reduce crime. They work too.
Most of us are not overly aware of them day to day because, guess what? The law abiding citizen has nothing to fear!! CCTV has been used to convict people whos crimes have ranged from Murder to grafitti "tagging" so, the average Brit hasnt got a problem with them... BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
^^^ lol

Oh you have just as many rights as us do you? Please explain because unlike my responses to you, you didn't address even half my claims. What kind of fantasy land do you live in? All your governments power is for the most part centralized how is that fair? No your rights are not upheld and yea your right you couldn't care less... You people cheer on your corrupt government and for what reason? Because the majority of you don't give a f*** what your government does as long they take care of you from cradle to grave, it's pathetic. Are you seriously going to argue that because the CCTV cameras catch criminals that the government should have the ability to spy on law biding citizens as well? Because if you are then it's truly sad how much faith you have in the crooked politicians that have caused this mess. And when I say citizens I'm being far too nice because as most know about the average folk in Britain you are all just the governments subjects. The concept of individual liberty and privacy must fall on deaf ears in your country. No offence of course to the other Brit with the username merkins that commented earlier, he's a true British patriot, as were my ancestors that came to America on the Mayflower in an attempt to get away from your oppressive government. So I'm stupid for believing in freedom and ones ability to fulfill their OWN destiny you say? Well, if thats the case I'd rather be stupid than what could be described of you. And don't even get started on crime in my country considering the crime in yours. Since banning guns in your country the UK has had a higher crime rate than all other "rich nations" except for Australia, coincidently another country that banned firearms. In fact, people in the UK are also almost twice as likely to be the victim of a VIOLENT crime than those in the United States. Also, of all countries in the EU including the ones with lax gun laws, the UK had the highest violent crime rate including the highest number of total burglaries. In 2007 the UK had a greater number of murders than all EU as well. It's funny you criticize our right to bear arms considering that even after our assault weapons ban ended in 2004, violent crime in the US has dropped by more than two thirds! Analysis figures from the European Commission showed a 77 percent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual assaults in the UK after Labour took control. Since 1998, the UK went from having 652,974 crimes per year to over 1.15 million crimes in 2007. This means there are over 2000 crimes recorded per 100,000 people, making the UK the most violent place to live in all the EU. And all that even after your own government has admitted to underestimating violent crime for over a decade. In just 5 years people requiring hospital treatment due to a violent crime in the UK increased by 50 percent. These government figures are incredible compared to only 466 violent crimes per 100,000 in the United States. So now that we have established the fact that not only crime but violent crime in general is much higher in your country than the USA and most other developed nations, don't you think people in your country should have the ability to defend themselves, whether it be with a firearm or not, from all the criminals your justice system lets walk the streets?

As Benjamin Franklin once said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety".
edit on 12-2-2013 by LiberteaWarrior because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
18
<< 1   >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum