Wiretapping
Once again the mainstream media has its priorities reversed. Wiretapping is an essential aspect of tracking potential terrorists, especially in view of the fact that overseas calls are often routed through U.S. networks. It is imperative that such calls be intercepted to avert a possible terrorist attack such as 9/11. The temporary reprieve is essential, but it does not go far enough. The 1978 FISA statute effectively hamstrings the President by requiring needless warrant to intercept such calls. In addition, liability protection is needed to protect telecom firms from potential lawsuits for cooperating with the National Security Agency. Yet, liberals will stop at nothing to discredit the Bush administration, even in time of war!
This letter has not been edited.
And yet again, Brian Stuckey is willing to give away our freedoms, no questions asked, in the name of 'preventing another terror attack'. Might as well try and pass legilsation to stop hurricanes, or forest fires, or lightning. Even Bush and all his thick-headed associates are of the opinion we will be attacked again...so why give up more liberty?
BTW, who and what are we at war with?
oh, yeah...an infitesimal band of thugs and bitch boys who would murder innocent people...so we have to start living in a police state to be safe...
tell you what BS, how about we all move in to a prison so we can all be strip searched and monitored 24/7. Then we will know positively who is a real threat.
'needless warrants', indeed...well you may be willing to give up your liberty, but don't think for a minute I am willing to tolerate you giving up mine, or anyone elses for that matter.
Do you realize what puss you sound like?
Do you go about your day looking at shadows wondering, "gosh, al qeada might be coming for me?" or do you invision a Normandie-like invasion of the Eastern seabord of radical jihadists?
No, BS, it is you that have a low opinion of American and Americans.
Posted by Grim Reefer on August 14, 2007 01:57 PMSeriously, everybody.... Stuckey is a cartoon character. No need to get riled up on this one. Every letter he writes gets to be more and more absurd and unbelievable, like a long-running comic strip. Certainly no one out there could be as dimwitted as Stuckey, and still have the brain capacity to type big words like "for" and "the".
But just to play along with the comic satirist known as Stuckey: What if the Bush Administration legalizes rubber glove searches? Will you happily drop drawers when the black van approaches?
Brian
You quote the founding fathers and history a lot. Please take to heart this admonition from a rather famous father figure of our Republic:
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Benjamin Franklin
Posted by Trinity on August 14, 2007 02:06 PMBut Brian is the first one along with many righties yell cry and whine when a democrat tries to pass a control measure to keep us safe from people that shouldn't have guns.
Posted by larry on August 14, 2007 02:16 PMNo-one argues that terrorists should not be surveiled. To say otherwise is to be a liar.
"The 1978 FISA statute effectively hamstrings the President by requiring needless warrant to intercept such calls."
Why needless? Is the 4th amendment needless? Shouldn't President Hillary Clinton also be hamstrung? Is the concept of checks and balances worthless?
Posted by on August 14, 2007 02:17 PM02:17 PM
"Is the concept of checks and balances worthless?"
In theory, no. In actuality, it's an abstract notion that is barely provided lip service. The power elites of the two parties are two dependent on each other and their mutual financial and influence granting benefactors.
While each party has a small base committed solely to their causes, most of the big money and influence granting players reside in both camps.
Posted by on August 14, 2007 02:29 PMI'm still trying to figure out just where our forefathers protected electronic transmissions. Not sure they saw ths one coming, and if they did, would they have made stupid statements like the above posters?
Posted by on August 14, 2007 02:35 PM2:35 PM
That's a rather smug and asinine faux observation. I doubt they foresaw the space either. Now are we even?
Posted by on August 14, 2007 02:38 PMStuckey, is that you at 2:35 trying to sneak in a defense of your pathetic letter? Really, what does the concept of electronic transmission have to do with the framework of liberty and self determination set forth by our founding fathers?
Abridge the basic concept of freedom by restricting that freedom, for any reason, what do you have left besides life in the gulag.
Posted by on August 14, 2007 02:49 PM"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." - 4th Amendment
Posted by The Constitution on August 14, 2007 02:51 PMDamn you The Constitution!!! You must be a terrorist loving, hippie liberal peacenik! Because of people like you, we will be forced to bow to the East and pray to Allah 5-times a day!
You wouldn't know a True American if they bit you in the ass. You make me sick!
Posted by Grim Reefer on August 14, 2007 02:56 PMGrim,
I assume that is tongue in cheek?
I know, it is so hard to actually FOLLOW THE RULES that established this great republic. That it still means something to have personal liberty. That I was written and amended to guarantee these rights to prevent tyranny. That Patrick Henry inspired my writing by proclaiming "Give me Liberty, or give me death."
But it is odd, how those that proclaim "conservatism" are really the "liberals" that want to change me.
Oh, and Larry, if the 4th Amendment is still apropos, then the 2nd Amendment is as well. We have repealed Amendments from me before. If you would like to change the gun laws, please repeal my second amendment, if you can.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Posted by The Constitution on August 14, 2007 03:17 PMIt was tongue in cheek...possibly even ass- cheek.
The fact is, we love you, The Constitution. We are disgusted by those who in one breath say they love you, too...then move to rip your guts out.
Posted by Grim Reefer on August 14, 2007 03:23 PMThanks Grim. I knew I could count on you!
REEFER MADNESS BABY!!! (Did you know that hemp was actually used as currency for a time in our history - Jefferson, as Governor of Virginia, made it currency in 1781).
Posted by The Constitution on August 14, 2007 03:33 PMBrian, quite simply would you please just kill yourself?
Posted by on August 14, 2007 03:38 PMWho is Hillary going to tap? And will her Justice Department or National Security Agency provide the kind of check that a FISA court once did?
Chances are her administration will construe 'terrorist' to apply to those advocating violence against abortion-clinics, and by extension...any group that is loosely connected to 'support' of such groups. And rightly or wrongly, this should pull in most of the fundamentalist evangelicals and right-wing talk radio hosts.
And they'll never know precisely what hits them and why.
Posted by on August 14, 2007 03:49 PMI do know the cannabis plant has been subject to slander and outright lies since th early 1920's when a select few wanted (William Randolf Hearst to name just one) wanted to make it illegal.
You see, it Hearst wanted wood pulp paper for his news operation (as he owned wood forests and paper mills)...did he care the hemp can yeild 20 times more paper than a tree can? sure he cared...he did everything he could to stir up false hysteria about hemp (aka the Devil Weed) to secure his own profits in the wood pulp industry.
for more information about the crack down on one of God's greatest gifts to man, I urge you to read the tome
'The Emperor Has No Clothes' by Jack Herer
Posted by Grim Reefer on August 14, 2007 03:55 PMAugust 14, 2007 02:29 PM,
Good point. It would also be the liberals who would blame Bush for not doing enough if we didn’t have electronic surveillances and we did have another terrorist attack. But then again, even with the surveillance measures in place if we have another attack the liberals will scream, “See! See! Those ‘wiretaps’ didn’t help at all, did they?”
The term “wiretapping” is a huge misnomer. Wiretapping involves actually listening in on private phone conversations. That is not what is happening. The NSA monitors phone calling patterns between suspected terrorists and people, both within the United States and abroad. That is not illegal and it definitely is not wiretapping.
August 14, 2007 02:17 PM,
Your Fourth Amendment rights are perfectly in tact. You are not being subjected to unreasonable search and seizure so quite being paranoid about it.
Grim Reefer,
It sounds like public education didn’t serve you very well. What is “infitesimal”? What does “invision” mean? You don’t even know how to spell “Normandy.”
It’s ironic that you mock Brian Stuckey ("gosh, al qeada might be coming for me?") but you are the one who thinks that we have begun living in a police state and that your liberties have been given away. You also don’t know how to spell “al Qaeda.”
These are only measures taken as attempts to prevent terrorist attacks. Rather than bitching and griping simply out of vitriolic hatred for George Bush and/or out of unreasonable fears that your rights and liberties are being taken away how about actually doing something to help your country defend itself against a terror attack. Or is that not in vogue these days?
Maybe we should throw up our hands and say, “Might as well try and pass legilsation to stop hurricanes, or forest fires, or lightning,” as if there is nothing we can do to stop any terror attacks.
“Legilsation”!?
Mountain Cat-
way to correct me for grammer rather than debate the points...
here you go
Normandy (in French: Normandie, and in Norman: Normaundie) is a geographical region in northern France. Upper Normandy (Haute-Normandie) consists of the ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normandy
ok, so I like th French spelling...(OH MY GOD A FRANKOPHILE...not really, but jump on that bashing bandwagon, too)
but we're missing the point...did I say we were living in a police state...hmm let me look over that post again....can't find it...but i did argue that BS, and you by all accounts, would be happy to hand over a little more liberty for security...nor did I bash Bush, just his thick headed associates (but why bash bush, that's like shooting fish in a barrel)...
so attack my grammer and my poor typing skills...I tip my hat at your astounding debating technique...you type al qaeda..I type Albet G Kaida...what the hell is the difference? Did I get two groups confused? Is al qeada really a group dedicated to helping the poor, while Al qaeda is a dastardly terrorist organization?
Maybe you wanted to seize an opportunity to attack an easy target (although, off target in my estimation)
would you care to know I am vet, honorably discharged from service?
What should I do to fight terrorism these days?
I smoke weed, fool, and live life to the fullest extent to celebrate freedom everyday...maybe you'd have me be another pawn (or as I like to say, be a bullet sponge)...hell, if you on about me not doing my part, what the hell are you doing wasting time combing over my post when the 'real' enemy is on the loose, in our streets, or possibly in your backyard...wait, don't tell me...I am the enemy...why, yes, yes I am...
divide and conquer...
I would guess...even with my ill-served public education (and a degree from a state-funded university and a mind so adled by the herb that most mortals would succumb to unconscoiusness), that I could prevail over you in a battle of wit, intelleeeegence and mad-love making skills...
maybe we should meet up for a few drinks and see where the night could take us?
WTG Mountain cat
Posted by JDM on August 14, 2007 04:59 PMMountain Cat:
"These are only measures taken as attempts to prevent terrorist attacks."
Prove it.
...(crickets)
...(dog barks)
...(fascism creeps)
Posted by Charles B on August 14, 2007 05:01 PMThe various intelligence agencies,NSA,CIA inclided have been keeping tabs on potential enemies for a long time now. Nothing new in that or monitoring international and national media and communication systems. The new thing is the way in which the present administration is presenting the issue. We need to ask ourselves several questions; why is it that what was secret and covert now is at the center of public debate, is there a equally covert reason behind making this a public issue?; why is there a movement to present such information to the public's attention when it was working just fine in secret in the first place?.
I suggest it just may be a way to get people to agree that wiretapping is necessary to employ against terrorists, then ever so slowly included other segments of American society, which can also be justified by instilling fear in the public that home grown terrorists are a danger needing monitoring, which leads to suspected terrorists, which leads to----- you get the picture? Is that not how Macarthyism became such a fanantical and sensationalism abomination of the rule of law not so very long ago, by using fear of communism as a justification to pry into the lives of everday citizens of the country.
Once a government creates a control system of any kind it becomes, for all purposes and intents, bordering on impossible to uncreate.
Watch and see if there are any signs of inclanations of that type of thing involved in this wiretapping project and, if you see it, you better learn how to communicate by smoke signals, that or rise up and vote the nazis out of power before it becomes absolute.
"...(fascism creeps)"
I love how the same people who clamor for the government to manage our health care, education, and retirement are so alarmed at the thought of the government monitoring electronic communications with suspected foreign terrorists.
I love the references to the Constitution over this issue. I really do. I just wish the same people would show me where in the Constitution resides the authorization for federal health care, social security and public education.
Posted by John II on August 14, 2007 06:13 PMJohII
Ah, the infamous "general welfare" claus at work. Covers a multitude of vote buying justification!
Posted by on August 14, 2007 06:17 PM6:17,
Well, if they use the old "general Welfare" term, I guess I can play the same game: It is for the citizen's general welfare that we monitor electronic communications with suspected foreign terrorists. Hey, that was fun. I wonder what else I can apply that "general Welfare" term towards.
""To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States;" that is to say, "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare;" for the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. Congress are not to lay taxes ad libitum, for any purpose they please but only to pay the debts, or provide for the welfare, of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please, to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase--that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the Untied States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they pleased. It is an established rule of construction, where a phrase will bear wither of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which will render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them." -- Thomas JeffersonPosted by John II on August 14, 2007 06:28 PM
Careful - you'll cause Charles B and the other libs to have brain farts attempting to first read the Jefferson quote, and then attempting to twist it around to justify government intrusion and control. Not nice to toy with the narrow minded...
Posted by on August 14, 2007 06:41 PMSince men are most likely to be involved in violent crimes, let's put a monitor on good ol' Brian to track his moves.
Posted by rick on August 14, 2007 08:26 PM"I love how the same people who clamor for the government to manage our health care, education, and retirement are so alarmed at the thought of the government monitoring electronic communications with suspected foreign terrorists."
Whereas I love how people who are unconcerned about government spending on weapons and government surveillance, will get in a froth over government spending on healthcare or passing inoculation laws for HPV.
;)
John II said:
"I love how the same people who clamor for the government to manage our health care, education, and retirement are so alarmed at the thought of the government monitoring electronic communications with suspected foreign terrorists."
Actually, John, I'm "alarmed at the thought of the government monitoring electronic communications with suspected foreign terrorists" without court oversight and without probable cause.
Do you dispute that before FISA, the government regularly abused it's power to wiretap US citizens?
Do you think the latest FISA changes were necessary?
Posted by Charles B on August 14, 2007 09:34 PMMr. Skank and Charles B.,
I am not unconcerned about government surveillance. It bothers me as much as you.
Posted by John II on August 14, 2007 10:30 PMOnce again, the Mountain Cat showed his/her/its stupidity.
If you are going to razz on someone for their INFINITESIMAL grammar and/or typing mistakes, make sure you don't do the same. Ding dong dummy. You have so many grammar mistakes in that paragraph attacking the truly intelligent Grim Reefer, it boggles the mind.
Posted by The English Teacher on August 15, 2007 05:43 AMDoes anyone remember the idea of putting up cameras on street corners to monitor the goings and comings of suspected law breakers. Well, there is now no area of many towns and cities in England that is not scaned day and night. And, that surveillance of the public is growing here in the U.S. Why?, well isn't it obvious. We need to be protected from ourselves.
Add to that the ever increasing spy satelite technology and electronic surveillance and boots on the ground intelligence gathering abilities we have come to regard as necessary support to these technologies, I wonder why we seem to be so inept at tracking terrorists, or are we? I am not now, nor have I ever been a conspiracy buff nor am I paranoid person who looks for cabals, plots and schemes behind every tree and under every bush, no pun intended,
I am an educated person, a taxpaying citizen, a small business owner and, I have an abiding love for liberty, justice and pursuit of happiness and, the rights attained by them under the Constitution of the United States.
That said, I still think it necessary to question any action by our government that may serve to violate that which I cherish as assured rights under our constitution and the foundational and core values that protect our freedom from governmental oppression.
I won't go as far as saying that our system of government has intentionally usurped the freedom we are owed by the constitution but, there are those within that system who blindly take what they think are needed actions, are blinded by their zeal to the consequences of those actions and therefor cannot see the inevitably negative results of their unthinking and fanantic zealousness.
Allowing government to regulate your life is like setting the dogs loose, you no longer control them.
Posted by Allen Campbell on August 15, 2007 06:07 AMCalling the NSA program in question "wiretapping" is disingenuous. It's actually a screening process more akin to data mining. No matter that only a minute percentage of calls isolated by the screening actually are monitored, and no matter that even those few are not collected by placing taps on phone lines --- they are collected by much the same techniques as police scanners work. The whole issue is a red herring.
Posted by NC Iconoclast on August 15, 2007 06:43 AM"The 1978 FISA statute effectively hamstrings the President by requiring needless warrant to intercept such calls."
How does the statue HAMSTRING when:
1) in case of emergency, the Attorney General can grant an immediate warrant & all the proper paperwork can be filed within 72 hours
2) between 1978 & 2005 (the last year for which statistics have been released - the Feds must have incredibly bad computers & software) only 4 (four) requests - out of over 18,000 - have been denied ( those were all under the Bush administration, so the evidence must have been flimsy to non-exisitent).
Do members of the GOP who clearly believe party trumps the Constitution (and who voted not once but twice for a man who referred to it as "just a goddamn piece of paper" - despite the fact that W swore "to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." - guess his ability SUCKS) realize that there will be an administration & party change (there always is) and they have handed off tools to the Dems that can easily be used against the GOP - which is why saner members of the party have said Bush has gone too far?
Posted by Mary on August 15, 2007 07:00 AMJohn II:
"I am not unconcerned about government surveillance. It bothers me as much as you."
This makes me happy.
Posted by Charles B on August 15, 2007 07:03 AMNC Iconoclast claimed to know the following:
"Calling the NSA program in question "wiretapping" is disingenuous. It's actually a screening process more akin to data mining. No matter that only a minute percentage of calls isolated by the screening actually are monitored, and no matter that even those few are not collected by placing taps on phone lines --- they are collected by much the same techniques as police scanners work. The whole issue is a red herring."
So I take it you know something that the Senate Intelligence Committee doesn't...
Or else you're just making it up because you wish it were so...
Posted by Charles B on August 15, 2007 07:06 AMLet’s try to explain this in such a way that even a rightwinger may understand. Giving away rights in the name of ‘fighting terrorism’ violates the freedoms we ALL want. If you illegally allow search and seizure, and illegal spying and wiretapping, and elimination of due process to fight terrorist….the same people will soon come along and decide to take away everyone’s guns in the name of terrorism, using the same logic as the Republicans use now “something like, oh you want to defend the terrorists rights to bear arms so you must love & support the terrorists). Give away 2 or 3 of the items in the Bill of Rights and you will soon find yourself having the remaining ones taken away. Do I think we need guns, do I like the idea of a nut like “An(ti)-American” owning a gun? No, but I am opposed to the government taking them away just as much as oppose the government taking away the OTHER freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights that mean more to me!
Posted by duo on August 15, 2007 08:20 AM"People who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear".
Isn't that the party line?
Of the Nazis in 1942.
And evidehtly the Republics in 2007.
Posted by dmz on August 15, 2007 08:33 AM"People who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear".
Isn't that the party line?
Of the Nazis in 1942.
And evidently the Republics in 2007.
Posted by dmz on August 15, 2007 08:34 AMGrim Reefer,
I must admit to being a bit of a hypocrite. I have scorned others on this very blog for attempts at attacking the intellect of a poster rather than addressing the issue.
However, I did address the issue as well. Charles B didn’t like that I wrote, "These are only measures taken as attempts to prevent terrorist attacks," and ordered me to prove that.
Charles B,
No, Charles, you ought to prove that the FISA ruling mentions the word “wiretapping” as a specific technique of surveillance used by the NSA. I’d check for it myself, but I’m too much of a “ding dong dummy” to understand it.
While you are at it, prove that those measures have caused a problem for any law abiding citizen. Prove that anyone other than a criminal has had their phone under surveillance.
My bet is that you cannot.
And my bet is that you accuse Republicans of using scare tactics to advance their agenda.
The English Teacher,
BTW, The English Teacher, you might want to educate me as to where my grammar mistakes were. I type my posts on a Word document first to do spell and grammar checking, and then cut and paste them onto the RMN blog comments area. I just copied and pasted my last post back to Word and the only spelling errors it underlined were those posted by Grim Reefer. So, we need to alert Microsoft about the incompetence within their software program and you can straighten them out.
Look at all the Democrat cowards posting on this issue.When there were letters talking about gun rights these folks were missing in action.The only Democrats that posted on that issue talked about taking our guns away.This wiretapping letter was posted just yesterday and look at all the coward Democrats that have defended the terrorists right not to be wiretapped.What is going on hear.Lets look at what "duo" wrote"Do I think we NEED guns do I like the idea of a nut like "An American" owning a gun.NO.Why would Democrat "duo" and all the Democrats be so concerned about wiretapping but not the Second Amendment ? Not letting the government wiretape helps the terrorists.Many Democrats hate the US and want the terrorists to kill or soldiers.They believe we are the evil ones and the terrorists are freedom fighters.Some other Democrats are just cowards like "duo".Some of you may think this is not a nice thing to say but Larry says "I do not think we need guns".To me that means he fears defending himself.Common sense would tell you that you may NEED to defend yourself.Larry would not think that way because he is a Democrat coward yet he worries about being wiretapped!! Do not believe these Democrats when thy say that they are concerned about our rights.Read what they believe in and you will see it has nothing to do with freedom but everything to do with them being US haters and cowards.
Posted by An american on August 15, 2007 10:23 AMThe letter above the name is "duo" not Larry!!!
Posted by An American on August 15, 2007 10:30 AMAn(ti) American..You are hopeless. Again, you seem incapable of reading and understanding what you read.
I said I dont think we need guns above, but I never said I was against the 2nd amendment. I support even a total jerk like you having your gun ( granted in hopes you will accidentally shoot yourself), but damnit I want the other 9 freedoms the Bill of rights guarntees as well!!
Why do you only care about ONE of the Bill of Rights? Why are you so eager to give away the other 9 of the Bill of Rights? Are you a closet fascist? Do you hate freedom so much you are compelled to give them up so easily?
I'll just twist An(ti) Americans words and assume he backs gun rights so that the terrorists and enemy have guns. What an unpatriotic SOB he is, he only cares about armning the enemy, he doesnt care about the terriorists having guns as long as he has one! What a freedom hating, america hating sniveling coward he is!
Posted by the anti-keith on August 15, 2007 11:00 AMLarry writes "Democrats try to pass control measures to keep us "SAFE" from people that shouldn't have guns". As you may notice he does not mention that there are 22,000 gun laws restricting the Second Amendment.He does not mention how many large cities controlled by Democrats have all but taken away the right to own firearms.The reason for this is that Larry is concerned about being "SAFE" to the point that he becomes a coward.Also I would be willing to say his list of people that "shouldn't own guns" would include most Americans.On the other hand if the government violated his right to be free from "wiretapping" in the same way he would have a fit.These people do not believe in the Constitution.They are just US haters and Democrat cowards.
Posted by An American on August 15, 2007 11:06 AMIf it's absolutely vital that the government be allowed to wiretap the phone conversations of scores of Americans -- then fine, let them have thier fun. I have nothing to hide.
But why is it so hard to get a judge to sign a warrant first?
To those who would argue that the Bush administration has not eroded human rights and civil liberties, I would point out the following:
1. The United States now openly uses torture on people who have not even been charged with any crime.
2. The United States has repeatedly imprisoned thousands of people without due process. (Today, it's Guantanamo, but we've done it before. Remember Japanese-American Internment camps?)
3. The president routinely circumvents hundreds of the very laws he was elected to uphold by simply signing "permission slips."
Source: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/
Could someone please explain to me why Americans should be willing to give the government even more power to do whatever they want -- even if it's against the law?
Posted by True Patriot on August 15, 2007 11:33 AMWhat I want to know is why Stuckey's address always lists Denver when you know he's really living in some extremist, white supremicist, fundamentalist, renegade militia compound up in Idaho.
Posted by Thomas on August 15, 2007 11:34 AMduo I will take you at your word that you back the Second Amendment.Which of the 22,000 gun laws will you help me overturn.Right now I am fighting to make sure we can own semi-auto AK-47s will you join me in that fight? There are many other fights going on right now let me know which ones you will help me with.Also will you join the NRA?It is only $35 a year.To the anti-keith.He says"I do not care about the terrorists having guns as long as I have one".There is some truth to what anti-keith says.As long as I have a right to defend myself I know that criminals and terrorists will always get guns.I am brave[compared to a Democrat] enough to defend myself unlike most coward Democrats.People like anti-keith would probably take everyones guns away because he does not have the courage to defend himself.I also do not fear being wiretapped because I am not violating the law.As you notice the Democrats base their rights on fear.They are afraid of being wiretapped and afraid of being shot.More proof they are Democrat cowards.
Posted by An American on August 15, 2007 11:35 AMSo, an American, says he doesn't fear being wiretapped. Would you then approve any violation of our rights because you don't fear the result. Nuts to you man, you can give away all the rights for yourself but ,if you ever think I'll give up mine or allow anyone to take them from me your wrong, by the way only a coward would give away his rights without putting up a fight about it and, you just said you would do that because you have no fear. HA,HA, are you sure you don't write for Mad Magazine.
Posted by Allen Campbell on August 15, 2007 12:45 PMMountain Cat, you said:
"Charles B, No, Charles, you ought to prove that the FISA ruling mentions the word “wiretapping” as a specific technique of surveillance used by the NSA. I’d check for it myself, but I’m too much of a “ding dong dummy” to understand it.While you are at it, prove that those measures have caused a problem for any law abiding citizen. Prove that anyone other than a criminal has had their phone under surveillance.
I wonder, MC, why it's so hard for you to understand: We simply don't know what the Bush Administration is using it's surveillance powers to do. How can anyone prove anything either way without knowing this information?
My stance is that the government should operate with court oversight regarding surveillance of US citizens.
Your position is to trust the government to not abuse it's authority, even knowing that the government abused this same authority for decades before the 1978 FISA law was implemented.
In short, you are for blind trust. I adopt Reagans famous saying in regard to this issue: "Trust, but verify".
I'm surprised that someone so anti-government would so willingly give the government the power to operate in secret without oversight...well, not really that surprised I guess.
Posted by Charles B on August 15, 2007 12:56 PM"Also I would be willing to say his list of people that "shouldn't own guns" would include most Americans" -
no, Un-American, probably just wacko nut-jobs like you and Keith.
Posted by drew on August 15, 2007 01:25 PMI feel the same way CB. I can't for the life of me understand why so many people won't trust the government with surveillance but will do a 180, go 100% on board and trust them with their own lives (healthcare).
Posted by KW on August 15, 2007 01:30 PMKw tried to make a point:
"I feel the same way CB. I can't for the life of me understand why so many people won't trust the government with surveillance but will do a 180, go 100% on board and trust them with their own lives (healthcare)."
Nice try KW, but the difference is that a government run health-care system would have oversight.
I support government surveillance of suspected terrorists and other criminals with oversight.
Get the difference?
Posted by Charles B on August 15, 2007 02:06 PMAllen Campbell says I would give up my rights but he ,as all good Democrat cowards, does not mention the Second Amendment.That is because he is afraid of being shot.What I was showing him is that I am not motivated by fear like Democrats are when it comes to freedom.Democrats fear wiretaps because most of them are supporting terrorists in someway.I on the other hand have nothing to fear because I do not support terrorists.I support our troops.Another good example of a coward is Drew.He is fearful of being wiretapped because of his support of terrorists.On another letter he is begging the government to put cameras at every intersection so he will not be hit by a red light runner.Drew wants to take your gun rights away because he is fearful of being shot.Drew is the best example of the coward wing of the Democrat party.
Posted by An American on August 15, 2007 02:26 PM"Nice try KW, but the difference is that a government run health-care system would have oversight."
You're so right CB. The government would oversee the government run health coverage.
Kind of like how the government has oversight on Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, FEMA, etc, etc, etc...
You sure are a gullible one CB.
Posted by KW on August 15, 2007 02:27 PMKW is 100% right but let us see why the Democrats want the government to be in their lives when it comes to health care but not wiretapping.It is because the Democrats are fearful they will be caught giving aid and comfort to the terrorists[their friends]if wiretapped.On the other hand they are afraid of not having health care so they will turn it over to the government.Look up the word coward and you will see what I mean.
Posted by An American on August 15, 2007 02:37 PMMountain Cat: Sadly, using the spell checker on a computer program isn't going to help in your attempts to avoid grammar and or spelling mistakes. As much as I love and respect Bill Gates and the Microsoft programs, etc., the program for checking spelling and grammar doesn't work correctly.
The mistakes you made are too numerous to go over in this forum, so I won't be pointing them out to you here. However, if you want me to give you a lesson, please provide your email address. I would be more than happy to help.
In the meantime: GRIM REEFER IS STILL CORRECT IN ALL HIS POINTS. ;-)
My God, An American I have never seen such childish postings as yours, if you really believe the Democrats hate America and help the terrorists don't you think they should all be rounded up and executed or deported? Do you really believe around 50% of the US population hates America and wants the terrorists to win and kill our troops? You act as if the only soldiers serving are from the Republican party, I'm sure there are plenty of families who are Democrat cowards as you would say serving our country. It takes courage to stand up for what you believe in, it is easy to go with whatever the government wants. Every time you post with Democrat cowards and US haters you look like an uneducated fool..
Posted by Mike D. on August 15, 2007 03:31 PMMike D - you'll learn that it's best just to ignore Un-American. If he wasn't occupied with his air-headed rantings here, he'd just be bullying someone back at the trailer park.
Posted by drew on August 15, 2007 03:40 PMI apologize for the digression from the theme of this thread, but…
The English Teacher is a coward.
They know their bluff was called, but use the excuse that "The mistakes you made are too numerous to go over in this forum..." Where is the strength of your convictions?
While I am not overly brave, I am also not stupid. No way am I willing to put my email address on here. What a ridiculous request!
Grow a spine, Teacher.
Mike D. I believe in freedom of speech and the right of the Democrats to say things that help the terrorists.I do not believe that 50% of the people want the terrorists to win the war.I think many of these Democrats are cowards or useful idiots.I would guess that most of our soldiers ,that know what the Democrats stand for, would not belong to that party.The reason you think I look like an uneducated fool is because I am exposing your party and it bothers you.You do not understand the tactic I am using but believe me it is working.Also there may be some liberal Democrats as soldiers in Iraq but I bet they joined for the education benefits and did not count on war.Do you back the Second Amendment.By the way you are another Democrat that did not address the Second Amendment.I think many Democrats are cowards and that is why they stay away from that amendment.
Posted by An American on August 15, 2007 04:07 PMUn-American - you don't LOOK like an uneducated fool - you ARE an uneducated fool
Posted by drew on August 15, 2007 04:13 PMAs you can see again Drew is a coward.He is so fearful he thinks I am bullying him and he still hates poor people that live in trailer parks.He is a coward Democrat that hates the poor.
Posted by An American on August 15, 2007 04:15 PMMike D. I told you I was exposing your Democrat party.Drew is a great example.He has already admited to being a coward on three issues.
Posted by An American on August 15, 2007 04:23 PMCharles B,
You said,
“We simply don’t know what the Bush administration is using its surveillance powers to do.”
Very true. But you make the leap that because we don’t know then there must be some nefarious scheme to trick the American citizenry. Would you have the same feeling if it were a Democrat president using this type of national security?
You went on to say,
“How can anyone prove anything either way without knowing this information?”
Yeah, well then, why did you tell me to prove that the surveillance was nothing more than attempts to prevent terrorist attacks?
Someone asked why is so hard to wait for a court order or a warrant. The answer should be obvious. But since it’s not obvious to that person, the answer is that a phone call would be ended long before the time a court order or warrant is issued. That would make the effort to get a warrant to obtain data on the call ridiculously pointless.
It’s not something that is new in surveillance of criminals. The government has been doing this for decades. The problem now is two-fold: The general public is just now finding out about it and it’s an unpopular Republican president who starting using the tactic for national security. I cannot recall the last time Bush did something regarding security of our nation that Democrats said was a good idea. It certainly is POSSIBLE that everything Bush does to protect America is wrong. But what is the PROBABILITY that EVERY SINGLE THING he does to protect America is wrong?
Yes, I know. All who despise Bush will say it’s an absolute certainty that everything he does is wrong. So then, what should he do that is right? He cannot very well sit back and do nothing because he has already been accused of that regarding the prevention of 9/11. If he does nothing he would be blamed for allowing a terrorist attack to happen. If he tries to prevent an attack he is accused of violating the civil rights of innocent Americans.
I sound like a huge fan of George Bush. I don’t like him very much. But what I hate is unfairness.
Mountain cat,
What should Bush have done?
He should have followed the long established procedures of asking for and getting warrants for the wire-taps he wanted.
It was that simple.
He would have gotten them. He could have gotten them after the fact.
Bush obviously didn't want to leave a paper trail. He didn't want anyone to know who he was spying on, even after the fact.
One can only surmise that the reason Bush didn't want any traces of his activities was because he might be spying on people/groups for purposes that had nothing do to with homeland security.
Or have we forgotten about Watergate already?
I will try An American's tactic. We have these pedophile Republican baby rapists trying to go after the wrong people. Why won't these Pedophile CIA outing traitor Republicans go after Osama Bin Laden. I know why, because Osama is in the Lincoln bedroom staying with these I need an AK47 because I have a small penis Republicans. These Homo Republicans (if they gay bash they they think they won't be outed) protect and assist Osama because these Corporate suck up, sell out Republicans need constant war to steal the US treasury..... Do I sound as right on as An American does? Should I include these statements every time I post?
Posted by Mike D. on August 15, 2007 05:50 PMAn American
You declare that you are standing up for America by exposing Democrats as either US Haters or cowards. I have expressed my belief as to how wrong and repugnant you are many times in the past. You impugn the name and integrity of people you know nothing about by declaring your beliefs as if you stand up for all of the true Americans in this country -- nothing could be further from the truth. You gather all people who are Democrats into some fantasy based cauldron comprised of the worst scum of the country because they dare exercise their beliefs which are contrary to yours.
I would like to see you stand before David Praeteus in Baghdad and call him a coward or US Hater. You see, General Praeteus comes from a long line of Democrats and is a proud member of that party. There are many Democrats who have in the past, and are currently serving in the military. I suggest you do a little more homework before painting people with a broad stroke.
You do more to harm the dying Republican Party than to help it. You accuse and defame any ideas other than those which you have embraced as the gospel as they come out the Washington GOP PR factory. You seem to ignore the fact that this country was founded on the free exercise of ideas and beliefs. Dissent has been instrumental in formulating policy and actions in this country since its inception.
Your Nazi-like stance to the exchange of ideas is typical of someone who is a personal coward when it comes to defending a personal position that has been adopted by rote and not intellectual process. Only a true coward would be so flippant in labeling others as cowards because they are attempting to mask their own deficiencies. In other words, you’re quick to label another in an effort to mask your own cowardice.
I do think Iraq was a mistake in hindsight. But I do not believe we can just cut and run, or “redeploy our troops” as is the PC way of putting it. And I speak as the father of a 29 year old US Army Combat Medic, not as an uninvolved bystander with nothing to lose. We have to find a successful exit strategy, but that is a topic for another post.
I served in Viet Nam 42 months and 19 days in combat units. At the age of 55 I went to Iraq and worked as a civilian construction manager in two different Anbar Province cities for 26 months. I am neither a Republican nor Democrat.
I served and did my duty for this country, An American. Outside of calling others a coward, what have you done to show your support for the US in a physical presence? Or, are you just masking your own cowardice and lack of self esteem by attacking others?
Trinity, Excellent letter, thank you for you and your son's service....
Posted by Mike D. on August 15, 2007 08:12 PMTrinity
"worked as a civilian construction manager in two different Anbar Province cities for 26 months."
weren't you just a war profiteer working for Haliburton and making money off the government?
CA
Posted by on August 15, 2007 08:14 PMMountain Cat, you said:
"(Charles)You said,
“We simply don’t know what the Bush administration is using its surveillance powers to do.”
Very true. But you make the leap that because we don’t know then there must be some nefarious scheme to trick the American citizenry."
Actually, it's not me that I'd like to know what's going on, it's an impartial judge. As long as there is legitimate oversight, I am happy to let Presidents use their powers to protect us.
"Would you have the same feeling if it were a Democrat president using this type of national security?
Yes. Because every President in the age of telecommunications used and abused the power of warrant-less surveillance up until Watergate and the subsequent creation of the FISA court.
"You went on to say, “How can anyone prove anything either way without knowing this information?”"Yeah, well then, why did you tell me to prove that the surveillance was nothing more than attempts to prevent terrorist attacks?"
To make the point that we don't have any way to know- thus the need for oversight.
"Someone asked why is so hard to wait for a court order or a warrant. The answer should be obvious. But since it’s not obvious to that person, the answer is that a phone call would be ended long before the time a court order or warrant is issued. That would make the effort to get a warrant to obtain data on the call ridiculously pointless."
This is a basic misunderstanding about how FISA works that is quite prevalent (and purposely put forth by propagandists on behalf of Bush). You don't need to get a warrant in advance. You have 72 hours after surviellance takes place to file for a warrant. Warrants are almost never turned down by FISA (a handful of times since it's creation).
In fact, the Congress has repeatedly made clear that it would further amend FISA to account for new technologies and situations that may require it. Bush has not taken them up on it, instead preferring to break the law and avoid oversight.
"It’s not something that is new in surveillance of criminals. The government has been doing this for decades."
..with a warrant.
"The problem now is two-fold: The general public is just now finding out about it and it’s an unpopular Republican president who starting using the tactic for national security."
So the problem isn't that the president is breaking the law, it's that the public found out about it.
This is a crucial passage toward determining how you develop your point of view on the subject.
"I cannot recall the last time Bush did something regarding security of our nation that Democrats said was a good idea."
Invade Afghanistan?
Invade Iraq? (didn't really improve our security, but that was the purported reason for it.)
The "Patriot Act"
The "Patriot Act II"
Amend FISA
Amend FISA II
Come on now Mountain Cat, you're being disingenuous here.
"If he tries to prevent an attack he is accused of violating the civil rights of innocent Americans."
This doesn't make sense. The point is, we don't know what he's doing, because there is no oversight. He may well simply be preventing terrorist attacks, then again, every single President who had the power of warrant-less wiretaps abused it. It's in the historical record MC, why would this President be any different?
It's not just Bush, no President should have this power.
"I sound like a huge fan of George Bush. I don’t like him very much. But what I hate is unfairness.
Unfairness is not having the following right:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
It's the 4th amendment to our Constitution.
CA 08:14 PM
Short answer to your question: No, I did not work for Halliburton or any other American owned sub contractor. I work for a Muslim owned company out of the UAE. We worked on rebuilding medical facilities and other small civilian infrastructures considered too small for the big American companies.
Our pay, which was admittedly substantial since we worked away from US Military protection in Mosul and Ramadi, came from the UAE. Our teams were comprised of men of many nationalities with construction backgrounds working side by side with Iraqi civilian crews.
It should be noted that the UAE is still working on civilian projects in Iraq and is not claiming or partaking in any of the oil or natural resource monies. They are taking no active sides in the sectarian squabbles going on.
Posted by Trinity on August 15, 2007 08:54 PMTrinity, CA again, sorry
A couple of questions, please.
1) your teams were made up of men from many nationalities and worked with Iraq civilians. Wasn't it difficult to communicate with a lot of languages involved? How many interpretors were needed?
2) You weren't under the US military protection -- why?
Why weren't you attacked by the bad guys (whoever they might be)?
I'm just interested in how things work over there.
CA
Posted by on August 15, 2007 10:54 PMAn(ti) American, An(ti) American,,,, again you need so much help in your reading and comprehension ability. I support ALL of the Bill of Rights, sorry I am not at all interested in the NRA but will buy a $35 memebership when You send a similar check to the ACLU. While I do not share your obsession with guns, I tolerate them. I said I 'support' the 2nd Amendment, right to bear arms and I assume you have a gun, so what is your gripe? Your 'gun' isnt big enough, lol, I am sure your wife agrees,lol, but there are doctores and implants you cold seek to solve that problem. Please tell me when you will start protecting the rest of the Constitution and the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights. Surely there is more to your life than just your lack of a big, umm, 'gun'? Don't you care about the other freedoms?
As for getting an AK-47, might I suggest you check with your terrorist buddies, I am sure you could purchase one from them? Based on your 'winning personality' I can see why you may need an entire ansenal to protect yourself,lol.
Brian you are right,as usual the liberals are wrong.clintons incompetence gave us 9/11.Instead clinton was wiretapping Princess Di.
Posted by Keith on August 16, 2007 08:49 AMAs for Trinty, you can tell he is trying real hard to defend his party of cowards and US haters.They have probably bought him off with some free stuff?]As for "duo" you can tell by the way he writes that he does not believe in the Second Amendment.He makes fun of people that own guns.Like most Democrats he will try to lie about his support.He may not understand that the ACLU in the past has not supported the Second Amendment.They are nothing more than a wing of the Democrat party backing gay rights but not the Second Amendment.They may have changed their view on the issue because we [gun owners] kicked the you know what out of the Democrat party in 1994."duo' you are the example of the Democrat coward I was talking about.You are also a fraud.You claim you back the whole Bill of Rights but you do not back the Second Amendment.That is because you are so afraid of being shot by someone.I have spent thousands of hours working to make sure we have the right to own firearms.That is how I know that Democrats are cowards because they are the main enemy of Second Amendment.They are so fearful that they would throw that right away.That is also why these cowards[Democrats] want out of Iraq.They listen to the media that shows dead bodies and want to run.Our brave soldiers are fighting because they want to.Nobody forced them to do it and here you Democrat cowards are giving aid and comfort to the terrorists.I would be ashamed to be one of you cowards.
Posted by An American on August 16, 2007 09:19 AMKeith, Are you suggesting that Clinton, as president of this country, caused the terrorist attack on the world trade center? Do you really think it took the terrorists all the years form the end of Clinton's term in office to put together a plan to do that? Do you really think that Clinton's tryst with Monica gave them the zeal to launch the attack ? And, do you really believe the terrorists needed any other reason than their hatred for American to commit such a cowardly deed? I'm very interested in how you can jusify your proof for the statement that it was all Clinton's fault going on 8 years after he left office.
Posted by Allen Campbell on August 16, 2007 09:28 AMAn American:
Are all democrats cowards or is it just those who disagree with your ultra right wing blind bias. And what is with your single minded infatuation with the word coward, It indicates to me you are obsessed with the idea and, as such, the question arises; why you are so intent on using that word over and over and over, ad nauseam, is it by doing so that you gain a greater idea of who you are.
Posted by Allen Campbell on August 16, 2007 09:50 AMAlso Trinity,I know the kind of money you guys made in the war zone and that is a strong draw.I would like to ask you do you support the right of the citizens to own semi-auto AK-47s in this country? Do you support the right of all non -felon citizens of the US to carry concealed without a permit?Do you back the right of all non-felon citizens to carry open in Colorado including city council chambers?Do you back the right of all non -felon citizens to carry concealed in schools and court rooms without a permit?Would you go in front of your city council and call them cowards if they did not let people carry open?Would you do that when a person was sitting in the same room with a shotgun and defending his right to carry it?Would call the ex-assistant police of chief of LA on the carpet for being anti-gun at a public meeting and then after the meeting beat him in a game of tug-of-war?All for no money!!!
Posted by An American on August 16, 2007 09:54 AMGood question Allen,.The reason I use the word coward when it comes to Democrats is it fits all the issues they back.If the policies they backed were not based of overwhelming fear I would not call them that.You folks have to face what you are and I am helping you come to grips with that fact.
Posted by An American on August 16, 2007 10:06 AMAn(ti) American. As always you are clueless, too stubborn or stupid to understand anyone else's viewpoint. Now it is not enough that I support the 2nd Amendment, I have to become as obsessed with it as you are, which I will not. Tolerating you the right to a freedom does not mean I have to embrace it. I believe in relgious freedom, but have found no religions I want to be part of nor any church I want to attend. But I respect other's rights to atttend any church they want, as long as they try to dont drag me in. You have spent 1000 of hours for the right to bear arms, but won't spend 5 minutes discussing the rest of the Bill of Rights. You are a poor excuse for an American if all America means to you is the right to bear arms. Try repecting the rest of the US citizens and their beliefs and their 'obsessions'. Perhaps if you enlisted and joined the fight in Iraq you would be allowed to have your precious AK-47?
Those of you who value your right to guns, those of you who support the Iraq war, those that support Bush, those that support Republican values...An(ti) American does you all a disservice whenever he pretends to speak for you. He hurts your position more than any democrat could.
An American
I have a hard time responding to you as much of your voracious drivel pales in the face of logic and common sense. However, I will address the points you brought up.
1) Yes, I made a lot of money in the war zone. I also know from my previous experience with MACV SOG in Viet Nam the devastation of war on civilians who have no ideological bent one way or the other. I had the experience required to do the work in an effort to offset, or mitigate, some of that civilian devastation. And, while I did make a lot of money, I’ve also undergone five re-constructive surgeries and ongoing physical therapy since returning in November of 2005.
2) Gun rights: I support the right of citizens who pass the qualifying prerequisites to carry a concealed weapon. I have a CW myself. I do not believe in “gun free” zones as I am of the opinion that it just provides vulnerable targets to those with an intent of carrying out a nefarious act. Our police forces are primarily reactionary, not preventative; and our security measures are always vulnerable to human error and inventive circumvention.
I have no problem with citizens, again who have met the qualifying prerequisites, to own semi-automatic assault weapons for whatever personal reason that may compel them to have the need of such ownership.
I do not believe in open carry as you present in your shotgun scenario as such an action would be an open invitation for confrontation just for the sake of confrontation. It’s similar to my belief that just because someone can drive a car they should have to prove maturity and responsibility before doing so. With freedom comes responsibility.
As for your challenges to publicly insult and bait public officials to support your positions, you chose what you feel is the best way to advocate your positions. I have other ways to pursue advocacy which I happen to believe are more effective. You might say that I go by the old adage that “you can attract more flies with honey than with vinegar”.
Bellow and hurl insults all you want, “An American”. But just keep in mind that all you are doing is reinforcing the paranoia, whether real or imagined, among people that the day of jack booted control of the thoughts and behavior of the citizenry is actually coming to the fore. Your arguments, accusations and method of delivery go far beyond being counter productive.
And you still haven’t answered the questions posed to you many times: beyond hurling verbal accusations and insults (and playing tug-of-war with an ex-cop), what have you done in a physical manner to support and defend your country?
An American:
Your inflated ego once again raises it's head. Your arrogance posess you so much that you dare to asume I need any help what so ever from you to understand who I am. With the kind of bravado you have, why don't you run for public office, then you could use your debating skills to defeat every cowardly democrat backed issue. I'm sure that the republican party would initially greet you with open arms and that you would last, lets say all of five minutes, before they voted to remove you from office to avoid and out and out gun fight on the floor of congress.
Posted by Allen Campbell on August 16, 2007 11:20 AMAllen Campbell
I've been a Republican 30 years, through thick and thin. I assure you that An(ti) American is in no way a Republican, nor would the party ever welcome him knowingly. He's about as Republican as Karl Marx was a Democrat -- he may (try) to fit on the extreme fringe to belong to something, but in no way expresses their beliefs or goals nor does the party acknowledge or condone his beliefs and tactics.
Posted by on August 16, 2007 11:27 AMI have a visual image of An American sitting in front of his computer, oblivious to his own offensive oder after not showering for a few days (Satuday's bath day for a real hard working american patriot -- can't waste time or water indulging in luxury); one finger up his nose and his other hand alternating between pecking out the url for an Aryan or other wacked out hate site and a can of brew. His little mind racing through absurd thoughts and alcoholic haze as he seeks to hide his own cowardness (his made up word) by affixing the label to others.
What a pathetic little troll the extreme elements of society has produced. It would be a laughable comic character if it wasn't an unfortunate fact of reality that there are trolls among us in real life.
CA
Posted by on August 16, 2007 12:40 PMThe best way to respond to "An American" is to not respond to him at all. That poster is like a child and when the child is not given the attention it craves, then it makes more noise until either addressed, or ignored so it gives up. I say ignore this person. Not worth the time and effort to type a response to partisan name calling and utter stupidity.
Posted by Ignore him on August 16, 2007 01:35 PMIgnore him
But it's so much fun playing with the troll. Don't be a spoil sport. He's an embarrassment to conservatives and liberals alike - the true antithesis of what an American is. His "partisan" statements are partisan only for the wacked out fringe of society and his ranting is only a reminder that the trolls do walk among us.
CA
Posted by on August 16, 2007 01:57 PMTrinity you are the first Democrat to actually say you support the Second Amendment.Does it bother you that you are in a party that is trying to take that right away?I believe in less restrictions on the right because it says "shall not be infringed".I support people carrying concealed without a permit.As for what I have done for this country if it were not for people like me you would not have the right to carry concealed.I have spent thousands of hours fighting for gun rights.I have had well over 100 letters published in major newspapers protecting gun rights.You would not be carrying concealed if not for me and many like me.You would not have the right to defend your life with a firearm if not for people like me.I would like to point out the fact that I have not made a dime on my activism.I am sure that you are a member of the NRA to protect your right to carry.This is only a small part of what I have done to protect the Second Amendment.I can not tell you everything I have done but if I did you would be highly impressed.I know I am.
Posted by An American on August 16, 2007 03:02 PMAn AMerican -
You still haven't answered the questions. When did you serve, are you serving now? Why haven't you put yourself in place of your mouth by action. Your secretive past is just wishful thinking on the part of a true, dyed in the wool coward who is all talk and not action.
At least Trinity walked the walk - you just talk the talk.
CA
Posted by on August 16, 2007 03:08 PMTrinity I know you do not like my tactics but they work.If you have not fought the battle for 20 years you would not understand.Actually the attacks I am getting are because I am on target.
Posted by An American on August 16, 2007 03:15 PMAs you can see when people call me names I do not get mad because I know they are not true.The reason these people are so mad is because they know they are real Democrat cowards and let us not forget US haters.
Posted by An American on August 16, 2007 03:22 PMTrinity did you know that if the Democrats were in power when concealed carry was passed in Colorado it would have been killed.Did you know that Bill Ritter pushed to ban semi-autos in Denver and now as governor is for banning them in "urban setting".His aid I think his name was Dryer told me personally.He could not tell me what an "urban setting" was.
Posted by An American on August 16, 2007 03:34 PMAnAmerican-
You don't get mad because your a delusional little troll unable to understand how pathetic you come across to normal people.
CA
Posted by on August 16, 2007 03:34 PMThink we're not in danger of becoming a Police State?
Read this little article (the story was first broke by the WSJ)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/15/AR2007081502430_pf.html
An American is too obsessed with the second ammendment, he can't discuss anything else without constantly bringin up the 2nd ammendment. I am a liberal and I defend the 2nd ammendment however i think citizens owning Ak47 assault rifles is rediculious, I'm sure the Police would agree. Most people who go on shooting sprees are not criminals before, but something snaps and they go on a shooting spree because they were fired or a lovers quarrel etc. I'm sure the police would rather have to deal with someone with a hand gun or a shotgun rather than an AK47. Having assault rfles for the general public is ludacris..
Posted by Mike D. on August 16, 2007 03:48 PMMike D
I essentially agree with you that it is somewhat ridiculous for someone to own an assault rifle in a civilian society. Usually, it's just to have bragging rights as it's worthless as a hunting rifle and very expensive to buy and use for target shooting (even if you reload your own ammo).
But your argument regarding possession of an assault rifle being preferable to handguns isn't that strong. For example, look at the Virginia Tech shootings (irrespective of whether or not he should have even had a pea shooter with his history). An individual with multiple magazines and/or speed loaders can be just as deadly if that is their intent. It could even be argued that a handgun is easier to control and will be used at closer quarters than a rifle of any kind.
Remember that the deadliest attack using a rifle was Walt Whitman at the U of Texas tower using a deer rifle, not an assault rifle.
I would venture the opinion that if An American wants and has an AK 47, it's an attempt to overshadow certain personal traits he feels inadequate about.
Posted by Trinity on August 16, 2007 05:00 PMTrinity,
I also agree with you regarding the handguns and rifles. I just think the type of people who are looking for AK47's have a plan in mind that could be far more destructive than the person who snaps and does not own an automatic weapon. The 2nd ammendment was written when there was no insurance to cover your lost valuables, we were far more rural and police were not as present as they are today. Then we did need guns to defend against theft and wild animals etc. But today unless you want a gun battle, they can have my TV, I have insurance for it!!! Of course I'm sure that makes me a coward to An America since I don't want my family shot.
Posted by Mike D. on August 16, 2007 05:53 PMCA August 15, 2007 10:54 PM
We're afar from wiretapping, but the unhinged one already lead us away. Quick and one time only answers:
To qualify you had to have multi language skills with at least "passable" skills in two other than your native language. English is more universally spoken than many people think. Additionally, we had our own UAE security teams guarding and working with us and they were all native born Arab speakers who spoke either English or one of the European languages. In addition to the language and construction experience they will only hire people who have experience in combat zones; either as a soldier or civilian worker.
We weren't eligible for US Military protection (outside of their general participation in the area) because we were considered a foreign entity not covered under the coalition umbrella.
We weren't immune from attack.
Posted by on August 16, 2007 06:14 PMCA - sorry, the post at 06:14 PM was from me in answer to your questions. For some reason my name was dropped during the posting process (must the same gremlins causing Old Grouch multi posting problems).
Posted by Trinity on August 16, 2007 06:17 PMBrian loves being fisted by the gutless chimp...
Posted by on August 16, 2007 06:50 PMTrinity
Thanks. Just morbid curiosity about things we don't learn about in Iraq from the media. I don't guess that you'd like to give your ideas about Iraq. Or is that another time and thread?
CA
I always feel safer, out on field trips, if someone has a gun.
Even little kids in Iraq had those knock off AK47`s and they weren`t safe from Saddam.
We could probably live quite happily, as a country, without assault weapons. If someone really needs an AK47 to defend against the government, that gun, or a dozen like it will not be enough.
An American, is suffering from OCD and watched Brave Heart too many times. If the only thing left to solve our problems is a gun then civilization is a write off.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 16, 2007 11:59 PMAn(ti) American..I am feeling a little neglected , you havent attacked me with your mindless drool in almost 20 hours. I am almost jealous of Trinity since Anti American has made him his new target, lol.
Posted by duo on August 17, 2007 07:11 AMTunnel vision zealots with the IQ of a rock, like an american, ( lower case is apt in this case), always think themselves to be the answer to all problems however, they can never seem to remember what the question is never mind articulate an answer. Ignoring them is best, when one tries to explain reason to fools there is an inherent danger that that you will become a fool as well, because you will have to lower yourself to their level if you have any hope of them understanding what you say. I quit, I don't have time for nor do I suffer fools easily.
Posted by Allen Campbell on August 17, 2007 09:12 AMI am glad you coward Democrats have been talking about the Second Amendment because it shows how stupid you are.Let me take Mike D. first.He states that "I think citizens owning AK 47 assault rifles is rediculious" The AK47s you buy in the stores are semi-auto only.We have owned these types of guns for over 100 years in this country.An assault rifle has to be full auto these are not.Let us see what Trinity has to say "it is somewhat ridiculous for someone to own an assault rifle in a civilian society" First if this guy has seen so much battle I would think he would know the differance between full -auto and semi -auto.He has just banned the owning of semi-autos we have owned in this country for over 100 years.Trinty said an AK is very expensive for target shooting.Until a few years ago the ammo was under $ 2.00 for 20 rounds which is very cheap for high powered ammo.Trinity the reason people want semi-auto AK47s is because of there low cost and they never need repair.They never jam or misfire.Anyone that has been in battle knows these facts.The AK round is not nearly as powerful as most hunting ammo.Trinity I hope you understand that the Second Amendment protects a right to defend yourself not a right to hunt.Sharon the AK47s we buy in the stores are not true assault weapons.Wiretapping was the topic as we began.What I want to point out is that these Democrats have their facts all wrong on firearms and you can call a gun store and they will tell you the same thing.They say they support the Second Amendment but do not even understand what the right protects.They can not give us good facts about wiretapping and the war when their facts are so wrong on the gun issue.The bottom line is I might be wrong about Democrats.There is a third wing in the party. The stupid ones.Class over.
Posted by An American on August 17, 2007 09:22 AMMike D, Sharon B - An AK47 (the ones allowed on the US) have no more power than a semi-auto deer rifle. In fact the deer rifle has a much greater range and greater accuracy so it could be deemed even more deadly than the AK.
The stigma and fear surrounding an AK is derived from media hype and it's constant harping about how deadly they are. Previous versions of the gun (banned in the US) are a larger calibur and some are full automatic. These are the types used in combat but the only version available legally here is the one I mention above.
Sharon B - Saying armed citizens would not be enough to fight agains our government is missing the point. Sure, the feds have much greater fire power but their goal in any squirmish would be to quell the populace, not annialate them with cannons and bombs. The feds need us otherwise they have nothing to control.
The purpose to be armed is to make any attempt at removeing our rights much more difficult. The more force they have to use in removeing any rights, the more alarmed, rebellous and distrustful we become.
Our ability to offer small or ineffective resistance is all that's needed to keep our own governing powers in check.
Posted by KW on August 17, 2007 09:52 AMKW, didn`t Waco tell you that the anti is upped each time the citizens arm and fight?
The government will sacrifice quite a few in almost any country, to hold the rest.
Like I said, if guns are the solution to social problems then civilization is a write off.
Wishful thinking, and fantasy will not work on this.
Our government, any government, will use the amount of force, and then some, to stay in power.
We can not keep our rights with guns. Think about this, it just is a pipe dream.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 17, 2007 10:27 AMduo 07:11
"I am almost jealous of Trinity since Anti American has made him his new target, lol."
I don't want you to feel deprived ! lol
You get him back real soon. I finished my rehab, passed my final physical and will be returning to my construction post overseas on the 28th of this month.
So I gladly pass the Unhinged One back to you. I can't say that I'll miss his stunning logic and rapier wit which he uses to support his intellectual arguments.
Posted by Trinity on August 17, 2007 11:14 AMKW is right andSharon is a Democrat coward that is why she can't envision fighting for anything.She claims that the armed citizen in the US would have no chance of defeating our military but claims we are losing against a force of armed citizens in Iraq.The reason for this is she cannot stand violence to the point of being a coward.This is what I was explaining about Democrats and Sharon makes my point.
Posted by An American on August 17, 2007 11:27 AMSharon B - You and I will never agree on gun rights but do you understand now the AK47 isn't the big mean boogieman people make it out to be?
Posted by KW on August 17, 2007 11:36 AMAs you can see trinity knows he was wrong on the above issues that I pointed out in my posting." duo" start talking about guns and the Second Amendment and I will attack you.
Posted by An American on August 17, 2007 11:38 AMTake a specific right, the right to peacefully assemble. Say you go to a Bush rally, paid for by tax payers, but you drive your sisters car with the anti-war sticker, and by mistake you put on an old "No war for oil" t-shirt.
Some faux FBI men either won`t let you in or escort you out. You have lost your right and didn`t even get a chance to draw your gun.
Right to a speedy trial, is next. You get picked up completely by mistake and sent to a Middle Eastern nation where they will "extract information about terrorists" from you. Lost another right, and again, didn`t even see that coming. Darn, and you couldn`t draw that gun fast enough.
All the time your Constitutional rights were slipping away, the government let you keep your guns. In fact they did nothing to take them from you, because as long as you had your guns you thought you could protect your rights.
Letting you keep your guns, giving you your Second Amendmant rights, and taking away others was so easy, because the gun right was the most important one to you.
You put all your time and energy into defending a right the government was letting you have, to keep you happy.
You have been snookerd.
Now I don`t think this is happening, but if it were.......
Posted by Sharon B. on August 17, 2007 11:46 AMKW my whole point of doing what I have been doing was to show Democrats do not have the facts about the war,wiretapping or any issue.They go with what they feel and then make up lies to support their feelings.They believe the lying liberal Democrat media on guns,the war and everything.You and I know the fact about firearms.That is why I forced them into a debate on the issue.KW they are just as ill informed about the war.They want to believe the media propaganda bacause they are either cowards or US haters.
Posted by An American on August 17, 2007 11:48 AMI think we can see Sharon has on idea of what the Constitution means.She thinks she is smarter that the Founding Fathers.
Posted by An American on August 17, 2007 11:58 AMKW, you are wrong. I support the second amendment, grew up around guns and was not joking when I said I always feel safer out if the field if some one is armed.
Or two or three are armed. I chose the AK47 because that seems to be the one everybody talks about.
What I am saying is that the gov has more money, time, firepower and general resources so we better fight them everyday and not wait till we need guns.
At 15 I could shoot the eyes out of an elk on the next ridge.
Don`t waste your time on the 2nd when the others are going down the tube.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 17, 2007 12:49 PMKW,
I don't think it is so much a matter of an AK47 being a "boogieman" as it is a matter of that being the handiest label for an automatic weapon set to "full auto" - or able to be set to "full auto". Certainly, there are other weapons capable of "full auto" performance, with greater capacity for damage to others; but most of us use AK47 as shorthand.
The underlying question is more to the matter of what use the average civilian weapon owner would have for "full auto" weapon in the first place.
Big Game hunting? I rather think not, unless one wants to make one's own - venison, perhaps? - hamburger out in the field, rather than have it ground in the butcher shop.
Small Game hunting? A rabbit in the pot makes more sense than a blood smear on the ground.
But, then again, I'm just old fashioned about a lot of things; and would rather have a well sighted-in rifle - of whatever caliber - to a "spray gun". Except for geese, ducks, etc., where a 10 Guage - or comfortable equivalent - is customary.
Family protection? Not really. Awkward to have by the bed at night, to say the least; and really not all that carryable in the daytime. But, that's more preferance than anything else.
Other use? DUH! That's the question.
All in all, I have posted before on the subject; and I haven't changed my mind all that much in the interim.
Safety trained and certified; not a felon, or afflicted with serious past/present mental health problems; sufficiently mature - since I don't think the artificial setting of an age for ownership means anything other than a form of nannyism - mature enough, then, to be responsible for a weapon, of ANY KIND, not just firearms - which the safety training and certification can certainly show by way of completion - and: Own away!
(Back in my day, I knew 10 year olds with more weapons sense than a whole herd of chronlogical "adults"; and one's own rifle was the "badge" of being responsible, earned, and kept, with pride.)
All of which, by the way, would EXCLUDE that "AnAmerican" character, who is a wonderful example of a juvenile mental case; as it does appear others are beginning to notice. Him, a water pistol he shouldn't have!
Anyway, as I have posted before, I am a Constitutional Conservative. DON'T TAMPER WITH ANY OF MY RIGHTS!
Posted by Old Grouch on August 17, 2007 01:01 PMOld Grouch, now Rosen wants to change the amendment that makes children born here citizens. First DOMA and not this.
If the Republics could write a play about the Constitution, it would be, " I love you, you`r perfect, now change".
Posted by Sharon B. on August 17, 2007 01:09 PMTrinity
"returning to my construction post overseas on the 28th of this month"
If your going back to work in Iraq why don't you take An American with you. I'm sure that he would appreciate the opportunity to do what he talks about? Besides, you would be doing us all a favor!
Posted by on August 17, 2007 01:11 PMSharon B - I disagree. You say don't worry about the 2nd because the others are being taken away? We must protect all of our rights equally. The main reason gun rights have been aversely eroded is becuase too many people don't care to own a gun, let alone fight to maintain that right. The same can be said for private property owners rights regarding the no smoking laws. People don't understand the loss of any right advances the great possiblity of losing even more rights. Government only recognizes the boundries we hold them to.
Regarding your Waco analagy, this is not an example of ever increasing force by the government but rather a great example of the public outrage when the feds use excessive force to control a group of people.
It'll be a long time before anyone, with the authority to authorize killings of that nature, actually acts upon that authority.
BTW - Why would you shoot an elk in the eyes? Always aim for the vitals, heart prefered.
Posted by KW on August 17, 2007 01:15 PMOld Grouch is an idiot.The AK-47s the Democrats want to ban are semi-auto not full-auto.Old Grouch talks about the Second Amendment being a right to hunt.It is a right to defend yourself from an oppressive government and criminals.Let me explain to Old Grouch the difference between semi-auto and full-auto.With semi-auto each time you pull the trigger one bullet comes out of the gun.With full-auto as long as you have the trigger depressed bullets keep coming out of the gun.I hope that was simple enough for him to understand.
Posted by An American on August 17, 2007 01:24 PMOnce again KW is right.
Posted by An American on August 17, 2007 01:29 PMSharon B - Rosen wants to change the misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment. When written, it was never intended to be a loophole for people sneaking across the borders.
The right of citizenship isn't granted to children of people visiting here legally, so why should it be conveyed to children of those who snuck in illegally?
Posted by KW on August 17, 2007 01:35 PMUnhinged One:
You can also buy a conversion kit for any standard manufactured AK 47 to make it fully automatic. They cost about $29.95 plus shipping. That's one of the reasons why most gun laws and descriptions still consider an AK 47 or an AR 15 (can get kits for those too) are still classified as ASSAULT rifles.
Also taken into consideration is the capacity of the magazine (of course you would never put more than 5 rounds in one, would you). An AK 47 is also manufactured for a snap and twist bayonet to be affixed to it. They can be used for self defense or offensive ASSAULTS, but are pretty much useless for hunting and not that accurate for target shooting. All these little things, plus a few more make the AK 47 (and AR 15, MP 5, etc.) ASSAULT weapons regardless of whether they are semi or full automatic.
This public information bulletin brought to you by an avid shooter and wife of a professional gunsmith.
CA
PS: I repeat, Trinity, please take the Unhinged One with you!!!
Posted by on August 17, 2007 01:36 PMCA - Good points, all true.
My point on the AK is coversion to fully auto is illegal and those who don't care about obeying the law aren't detered by them.
That's why I avidly argue against additional laws further restricting ownership and use of firearms.
They only punish us law abiding citizens.
Posted by KW on August 17, 2007 01:49 PMCA the only reason they are classified as assault weapons is because the Democrats went through a gun book and picked out the ugly guns and called them" assault weapons"It is against the law to change any semi-auto into full -auto.Any semi-auto can be changed to full-auto.You say that you can put a large capacity magizine in the AK-47.You can do the same in most other semi-autos.Also most guns we have owned through the history of this country that were military had bayonets lugs on them.Soldier of Fortune magazine reported they got 1 1/2 inch groups using Chinese ammo in the Chinese AK-47.For proof of what I have written call any gun shop or the NRA.Once again you do not know your facts because you are a Democrat that listens to the liberal media.
Posted by An American on August 17, 2007 02:07 PMShoot for the head, stuff the heart and do not, repeat, do not mess with the liver or rump.
KW, you will end up with a gun or many guns and not able to leave the house because all your other rights slipped away.
Like that old habeas corpus the Bush didn`t respect.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 17, 2007 02:20 PMKW & Old Grouch
I whole heartily support your position on gun ownership based on the maturity, responsibility, sanity and criminal background of the potential owners. There really is no reason to exclude ANY type of weapon from the possession of a law abiding civilian. I do wish there was a more comprehensive, non subjective measurement of an individual's mental maturity and rationality prior to them getting a gun; but, that's just wishful thinking. Like Old Grouch so aptly observed, some people shouldn't be trusted with a water pistol even after passing all of the general requirements to be cleared for gun ownership.
We don't need more gun laws attempting to restrict guns. We need more training in both gun safety and proper use for the general public. A gun can be considered a weapon (used against another person or animal), a toy (target shooting [a serious toy in the same manner a jet ski is a toy]), or a tool (hunting for food). It's classification isn't based on the composite of metal, wood or plastic held in one's hand; it's determined by the person whose mind controls those hands.
I grew up in the bygone era along side Old Grouch, where kids routinely were taught to shoot and proper gun safety. Receiving your first gun was almost a rite of passage in it demonstrating the attainment of some maturity and acceptance of responsibility.
Outlawing assault weapons, whether they be large capacity magazine pistols, or rifles designed for combat (AK 47, AR 15) doesn't make sense either. An individual bent on mass destruction can do the same thing with a revolver and speed loader; or, a low capacity magazine pistol with extra mags. And, if I were a cop I would rather be facing an armed suspect trapped in a building with a semi auto AK47 than the same perp with a high powered hunting rifle. Accuracy is of a more eminent concern than just the rapid spraying of bullets (even on semi auto). Unfortunately, I speak from experience gained from being on the business end of guns.
CA - No thank you. I don't need to see a professional psych evaluation to turn down your kind offer of providing a "sidekick". I'll have enough to be concerned about without adding to it working with someone of diminished maturity and capacity.
Posted by Trinity on August 17, 2007 02:24 PMFor once Trinity got almost everything right but semi-auto versions of assault weapons are not true assault weapons.The main thing that makes it an assault weapon is the select fire option.Trinity you can call me all the names you want but you are learning from me.You just don't know it yet.
Posted by An american on August 17, 2007 02:54 PMTrinity
I am disappointed to be sure. But, I do understand. In fact I'm sure that the Unhinged One would chicken out since there is real shooting going on over there -- he's all talk, no walk. You would think that the Unhinged One would quit trying to change definitions to fit his opinions, but like you say he lacks maturity and mental capacity.
I see people like him all the time coming into my husband's shop trying to get him to convert their "little babies" to full automatic on the sly. They are truly pathetic individuals who value their guns more than their families. It's surprising any of them have kids since there probably limited space in their beds with their assault toys gathered in like tedy bears. guess its just their way to prove their manhood.
Oh well, it was worth asking.
CA
Posted by on August 17, 2007 03:15 PMTrinity: In another post it came out you were with MACV SOG in NAM. I'm a former SF, post NAM. We used t hear how the MACV SOG members usually carried AK 47s due to resupply logistics for the AR 16s when deep in Cambodia, Laos or N NAM. What did you carry personally, if you don't mind me asking? It would be interesting to know who is more familar with the Kalashnikovs.
Thor
Posted by Thor on August 17, 2007 03:35 PMThor, I know more about semi-auto AK-47s.I shoot them about 30 times a year.I have owned them for 23 years.I have taken them apart more times than I can remember.CA is mad because I pointed out his lies about the gun issue.The way the ban on semi-autos started was the anti-gun Democrats thought they could confuse the public into believing they were full-auto.Their friends in the media jumped on the Band Wagon and fed the lies to the public to make them think they were full-auto because of the looks of the firearm.This worked so well that some people still think the assault weapon ban was about full-auto firearms.This was a first step to ban all semi-auto firearms.In fact in some Democrat controlled states they are adding guns to the ban that people use to hunt with.They even have a new term called a "sniper rifle".That would be your bolt action hunting rifle with a scope.They have plans for them.This is why I know the Democrats cannot be trusted on any issue.
Posted by An American on August 17, 2007 04:15 PMThor
Any mission requiring long range (RT) for any duration over two weeks, or more than 10k across borders, I carried a Chinese (not the Russian SKS model as they were inferior) made Kalishnikov AK47, 7.62x39 with an AK74 bayonet. Resupply was a critical factor, along with the reliability as the early model M16s would jam easy if not cleaned daily (powder residue was sticky). While we gave up longer range effectiveness we gained in resupply, reliability and close range encounters.
All together, I probably carried an AK47 for about three years out the 42+ months I was with MACV SOG. In fact, I currently own two original Chinese AK47s in my collection.
It should be noted the the new model M16s/m16As are vastly improved both in design and function. The powders used in the rounds are more efficient now then in the 60's. That's what the UAE issues their construction teams in Iraq.
Now, back to Wiretapping and away from the Unhinged One....
Posted by Trinity on August 17, 2007 04:48 PMAn American said obsessively:
"Thor, I know more about semi-auto AK-47s.I shoot them about 30 times a year.I have owned them for 23 years.I have taken them apart more times than I can remember."
...someone needs a girlfriend...
Posted by Charles B on August 17, 2007 10:43 PMSharon,does not like it when the topic changes to something that shows how much the Democrat party wants to take our rights away.Sharon will cry that the RMN protect the Democrat party from the truth that Democrats want to destroy the Second Amendment.This is what Democrats are all about and now they want to take away our freedom of speech.Whatever, is so stupid I cannot believe it.The SKS is a different gun than the AK-47.The SKS was the battle rifle before the AK-47. It shoots the same round but is a totally different rifle.Once again the liberal Democrats do not get their facts right.I own each of these guns that is how I know.Trinity is right on all his gun facts I give him an" A" for his research.Class over.
Posted by An American on August 18, 2007 09:20 AMMore proof that liberal Democrat Sharon is just trying to stop me from exposing the Democrats for being against the Constitution is when she begs the RMN to keep us on topic.On one of her postings she goes off topic when she tells Old Grouch that Rosen is trying to change the Constitution to not allow babies born to non-citizens to be US citizens.When she goes off topic to push her liberal agenda it is OK.When I go off topic to show the Democrat party is anti-Second Amendment she wants the bad man to stop.This is why Democrats are pushing to close Talk Radio down because they cannot control the flow of information.If all the facts were known you would see that the only part of the Constitution the Democrats support is what they think they can use to destroy this country.
Posted by An American on August 18, 2007 09:59 AMI was just reading my past postings.You guys have to admit it.I am "DAM GOOD"!!!!
Posted by An American on August 18, 2007 10:05 AM"AnAmerican",
Nope! You flatter yourself far too much.
Your much more of a damned ignorant, damned spoiled, damned noisy, and damned annoying little brat than anything else, sonny.
Posted by on August 18, 2007 10:32 AMComing from a person like you I consider that a high compliment!! You sound like you learned something from my class and it is really hurting.
Posted by An American on August 18, 2007 10:47 AMThe pain you feel is just your brain growing.
Posted by An American on August 18, 2007 10:53 AMAn American
Considering that Trinity actually used an AK47 in combat for years I would imagine he does know what he's talking about concerning that weapon. Have you used it in combat or just on paper targets.
I've been reading these blogs for a couple of weeks now. You seem to turn more people off to gun ownership that you do to encourage their use. Half the time I read your posts I, an admitted gun junkie, wonder if maybe we shouldn't have stronger laws to keep strange little minds like yours from having them.
Posted by Thor on August 18, 2007 12:23 PMThor, you sound like a Democrat coward.You are a gun junkie but become fearful when you hear words to the point of giving up your gun rights.You are a perfect example of the Democrat coward I am talking about.Any gun junkie that has read what I have said about the Democrat party on the gun issue and does not see what a threat they are is either getting welfare money from the Democrat party or a union member.I have spent thousands of hours defending your gun rights.What have you done?Me guess is very little.By the way I did not turn those people off to guns.I exposed those people for what they are Second Amendment haters.By the way weak people like you that claim they like guns but back down so easily are much more disgusting that Democrat cowards and US haters.
Posted by An American on August 18, 2007 12:46 PMAn American
I can see why most give up in utter futility trying to discuss anything with you. You fail to grasp what is said or asked of you by the person you are attacking; probably because you're too busy responding than contemplating what was said.
I'm your worst nightmare, sir. I'm a college educated, ex Special Forces officer,federal badge (and gun) carrying, Republican black man. I deal with the action prone bigoted rednecks like you in real life. At least you're just dense, not dangerous.
Now back to my question; have you used an AK 47, or any weapon' in either combat or an adversarial situation?
Posted by Thor on August 18, 2007 01:16 PM