*Lamented Sigh

[Melidan]

Well... Here we are.

I'm sure none of you know this, nor may any of you believe this, but I was once a big time liberal. I still have my Clinton/Gore '96 button that I wore on my backpack, and I even sported a "Bush Cheated" bumper sticker. I was pro-choice and an avowed atheist. I chalk it up to an ignorance of youth (no disrespect meant towards any of you younger guys). However over time I started leaning more conservative, led first by my mistrust of the global warming movement, but my full political flip came on the morning of September 11, 2001. I was resolved to stand behind my country and our Commander in Chief.

Fast forward to now and im a full blooded conservative, with a belief in God, and a great dislike of our current President. But that mistrust grew out of his failures, however I still respect him.

Now, on the rare occasions when I do pray, its always for my family and nothing else.. But yesterday morning before I went to bed, I prayed that John McCain would win the election. Not simply because of the ideals and beliefs about America that I have, but because I was quite frankly terrified of an Obama presidency.

This morning, I will pray that God gives our new President the strength and wisdom to see us through the next 4 years. I'll pray that he will prove me wrong.. Because if he proves me right, it will be the end of the Republic that we know and love. I will give him the benefit of the doubt, only because I have no choice. I will do what a patriot does, dress and cover and stand behind our Commander in Chief.

Please prove me wrong President Obama, please.

http://www.reversespins.com/pvf2.jpg
God save the United States

[Pimptastic]

Can't america just be fine without a president just for me so these threads will stop assaulting my eyes?

Honestly let the country be run by a rubics cube for 20 years just so long as nobody posts about the rubics cube its all good.

[bigdaddychacha]

Well... Here we are.

I'm sure none of you know this, nor may any of you believe this, but I was once a big time liberal. I still have my Clinton/Gore '96 button that I wore on my backpack, and I even sported a "Bush Cheated" bumper sticker. I was pro-choice and an avowed atheist.Shock-horror! :icon_eek:

I chalk it up to an ignorance of youth (no disrespect meant towards any of you younger guys).No offense, I used to be staunchly pro-Israel, but I similarly chalk it up to the ignorance of youth. Seeing as I know many older liberals, I'm sure your transformation is not nearly a universal American affliction.

However over time I started leaning more conservative, led first by my mistrust of the global warming movement, but my full political flip came on the morning of September 11, 2001. I was resolved to stand behind my country and our Commander in Chief.

Fast forward to now and im a full blooded conservative, with a belief in God, and a great dislike of our current President. But that mistrust grew out of his failures, however I still respect him.Bolded parts seem to indicate that you failed to stand behind our Commander in Chief, right?

Now, on the rare occasions when I do pray, its always for my family and nothing else.. But yesterday morning before I went to bed, I prayed that John McCain would win the election. Not simply because of the ideals and beliefs about America that I have, but because I was quite frankly terrified of an Obama presidency.So did you revert to your former Atheism when your prayer went unanswered? :D j/k

God save the United StatesIf I were religious, I would have said the same thing in 2004...as it turned out, I think my premonitions were right and today we are on the brink of economic destruction...there but for the grace of god go we.

[Villalba]

In the great depression, we saw an increase in arts and culture through the FDR years. Maybe this is going to happen in the great recession, in the Obama years.

[Curtis16]

Now, on the rare occasions when I do pray, its always for my family and nothing else..

http://www.reversespins.com/pvf2.jpg
God save the United States
That says it all man... At least you are prepaired for the future by beliving in God, and know we wait and see what is going to happen

[Villalba]

Well Mel, what you going too do, the best thing you can do right now is continue life as usual.

[Imperial]

I don't think that McCain even had a chance. He had the disadvantage as soon as R followed his name on the ballot. I can only hope that the new president will do what is best for all.

[Assarax]

I am a little sick and tired of people going on about how the country is doomed just because the liberals took power again. I mean God damn, it hasn't even been 24 hours yet and people are acting like the nukes are just raining down.

I didn't trust McCain or Obama to fix any of the crap that's wrong with the country, and I agree with Imperial that McCain was at a disadvantage from the moment he won the Republican nomination. People are generally fed up with Bush and the Republican party, which drove them to vote Democratic. My parents are a prime example of this, they've been staunch Republicans in the past, but they voted for Obama this time. I know McCain =/= Bush, but they still associate Bush with the Republican party, and therefore his failures became the failures of the GOP.

I too hope Obama can prove his worth to the country, and prove that America's faith in him wasn't misplaced. But I hardly doubt that America is doomed just because the Democrats are in office again. Had to happen some time right?

[bigdaddychacha]

I am a little sick and tired of people going on about how the country is doomed just because the liberals took power again. I mean God damn, it hasn't even been 24 hours yet and people are acting like the nukes are just raining down.

I didn't trust McCain or Obama to fix any of the crap that's wrong with the country, and I agree with Imperial that McCain was at a disadvantage from the moment he won the Republican nomination. People are generally fed up with Bush and the Republican party, which drove them to vote Democratic. My parents are a prime example of this, they've been staunch Republicans in the past, but they voted for Obama this time. I know McCain =/= Bush, but they still associate Bush with the Republican party, and therefore his failures became the failures of the GOP.

I too hope Obama can prove his worth to the country, and prove that America's faith in him wasn't misplaced. But I hardly doubt that America is doomed just because the Democrats are in office again. Had to happen some time right?QFT. My paternal grandfather has been a lifelong Republican as well as quite the racist, and he voted Obama! He still couldn't convince my grandmother, I think, but still! That's change I can believe in.

[Dark Force]

I am a little sick and tired of people going on about how the country is doomed just because the liberals took power again. I mean God damn, it hasn't even been 24 hours yet and people are acting like the nukes are just raining down.

I didn't trust McCain or Obama to fix any of the crap that's wrong with the country, and I agree with Imperial that McCain was at a disadvantage from the moment he won the Republican nomination. People are generally fed up with Bush and the Republican party, which drove them to vote Democratic. My parents are a prime example of this, they've been staunch Republicans in the past, but they voted for Obama this time. I know McCain =/= Bush, but they still associate Bush with the Republican party, and therefore his failures became the failures of the GOP.

I too hope Obama can prove his worth to the country, and prove that America's faith in him wasn't misplaced. But I hardly doubt that America is doomed just because the Democrats are in office again. Had to happen some time right?
Most of the conservatives have the problem with Democrats controlling two, possibly all three branches of government. Having a one party system isn't a democracy, its more of a Fascist/Communist Totalitarian style of government because the checks and balances system is blown out of the water.

[Lincongrad]

I like the fact that you are not holding the fact that he is a democrat against him and are instead hoping he does well. Thank you.

[The Arbiter]

Yeah, I'm worried about the dems controlling senate, house, and the presidency.

[Assarax]

Yeah, I'm worried about the dems controlling senate, house, and the presidency.

Of course you would be, just like I would be worried if the republicans were controlling the senate house and presidency.

[Melidan]

Bolded parts seem to indicate that you failed to stand behind our Commander in Chief, right?


I stood behind Bush after 9/11, even though I didn't like him before...I failed to stand behind him because of the continuing mistakes he made (although the mistakes I think he made are ones you probably dont consider mistakes)... Hence, i'm saying I gave him a chance and the benefit of the doubt because it was for the good of the country.. I will do the same for Obama. I hope he will prove me wrong, but I dont think he will.

[Assarax]

I stood behind Bush after 9/11, even though I didn't like him before...I failed to stand behind him because of the continuing mistakes he made (although the mistakes I think he made are ones you probably dont consider mistakes)... Hence, i'm saying I gave him a chance and the benefit of the doubt because it was for the good of the country.. I will do the same for Obama. I hope he will prove me wrong, but I dont think he will.

At least you're trying to stand behind him... which is more than I can say for a few people, who seem content to merely state that anyone willing to give him a chance is an idiot. I don't have much faith in him either, but fact is, he's the fucking president, so I'm willing to give him a shot. I gave George Bush 8 years worth of chances, as much as I hated him, but he managed to fuck it up. Will Obama do better, who knows? Only the next 4 years will tell.

[The Corporal]

I am a little sick and tired of people going on about how the country is doomed just because the liberals took power again. I mean God damn, it hasn't even been 24 hours yet and people are acting like the nukes are just raining down.

It's not just that he's a liberal; I'd be fine if honest, non-socialist, bipartisan Democrats were in charge, like Herb Kohl or others. It's that he supports policies that are socialist, financially irresponsible, and (in the case of things like the Fairness Doctrine and Chuck Schumer's forthcoming unconstitutional gun laws) downright evil.

[Villalba]

Well, face reality Assaeax. In the next 4 years you have another shot. Then again if they put Palin at the top of the ticket, consider the election of 2012 another landslide for the democrats.

[Melidan]

It's not just that he's a liberal; I'd be fine if honest, non-socialist, bipartisan Democrats were in charge, like Herb Kohl or others. It's that he supports policies that are socialist, financially irresponsible, and (in the case of things like the Fairness Doctrine and Chuck Schumer's forthcoming unconstitutional gun laws) downright evil.

And this is why I hope he will realize that 55 million people voted against him, and he should take a long pause and think before he decides to go running to the left with Reid and Pelosi.. Like I said, im not hopeful.. But we'll see.

[Villalba]

who knows, he might not go to the left but the really really far left, and declare himself supreme Communista of the American Communist party, and force dems to change party. And then you guys can say i told you so. Lmao.

[The Corporal]

who knows, he might not go to the left but the really really far left, and declare himself supreme Communista of the American Communist party, and force dems to change party. And then you guys can say i told you so. Lmao.

And then a lot of people would march on Washington, rifles in hand, ready for blood. :)

[James Davis]

And this is why I hope he will realize that 55 million people voted against him, and he should take a long pause and think before he decides to go running to the left with Reid and Pelosi.. Like I said, im not hopeful.. But we'll see.

Obama has an opportunity to win my respect. Pelosi, Reid, and their (now practically countless) minions will want to Europeanize this country. It will take a lot of political will for Obama to stand up to them and force them toward the center, but he can. Bush manhandled Congress for 7 years, Obama can too.

I will give Obama a chance, but if he fails to veto the inevitable "Fairness Doctrine," that's coming, that'll be it for me.

[Imperial]

Well, he won the election without your vote...so I don't think he'll need your approval <_<

I hope that he makes good and governs from the center in bi-partisan manner.

[James Davis]

Haha, well there's just been a lot of "the conservatives aren't giving Obama a chance!!, BWAH!!!"

I'm simply saying that I am, but he's on a short leash, as far as I'm concerned.

[Great Lakes Union]

Well... Here we are.

I'm sure none of you know this, nor may any of you believe this, but I was once a big time liberal.

http://www.reversespins.com/pvf2.jpg
God save the United States

And I used to be a god-fearing conservative. Which I now chalk up to youth and being raised in a small town. I appreciate your sentiment, thought. Its more magnanimous than I was when Bush won in 2000. (Sadly though, it did just about everything I feared he would... but that's another post.)

Edit: And I will say, BECAUSE of my liberal beliefs I oppose the fairness doctrine. In my mind, political speech should be treated just like any other speech, and no one is about to say that all music stations have to give equal time to all types of music. Not to mention, I accept that liberal talk radio just doesn't have the audience that conservative talk radio does, and I would rather have separate stations personally because I don't want to have to hear Rush :P

[tom the pit leader]

Most of the conservatives have the problem with Democrats controlling two, possibly all three branches of government. Having a one party system isn't a democracy, its more of a Fascist/Communist Totalitarian style of government because the checks and balances system is blown out of the water.

well, keep in mind the first 4 years of Bush where he had both the congress and senate in his party.

Really, if we're lucky, Obama won't have to do much, because he'll be able to get people going on their own without a government mandate or orders. That's what the best leaders do, just keep the momentum going in the right direction. Really, only the American people can solve some problems, but when the vast majority of Americans are for something getting done, nothing on this earth has EVER stoped us. He just needs to keep the hope of his campaign alive.

[The Corporal]

Obama has an opportunity to win my respect. Pelosi, Reid, and their (now practically countless) minions will want to Europeanize this country. It will take a lot of political will for Obama to stand up to them and force them toward the center, but he can. Bush manhandled Congress for 7 years, Obama can too.

I will give Obama a chance, but if he fails to veto the inevitable "Fairness Doctrine," that's coming, that'll be it for me.

Well, he won the election without your vote...so I don't think he'll need your approval <_<

I hope that he makes good and governs from the center in bi-partisan manner.

I don't see either of these happening. His voting record shows both a far-left political agenda and zero willingness to reach across the aisle. If the Republicans and moderate Democrats can keep the psychos (Schumer, Reid, Pelosi) from running amok with Congress, Obama might be forced into bipartisanship.

[Hubb]

Well, he won the election without your vote...so I don't think he'll need your approval <_<

I hope that he makes good and governs from the center in bi-partisan manner.

That first <_< wasn't very "bipartisan" of you, now was it? Anyways....

He won the election without my vote, as well. That's the beauty of having the ability to vote.

Truthfully, he will need the approval of Americans from every walk of life (that's me, and James Davis, and others). Once Conservatives (I'm only speaking of Conservatives, and will not put words in the mouth of any liberals on here) set their mind to something, they don't quit (ie- Amnesty bill, anyone?). Of course, it doesn't have to be Conservative vs. Liberal. As Americans, if we are united, we can move mountains.

Also, Melidan, that is a beautiful picture.

I was once brainwashed by those with a liberal agenda (i.e. College), but I grew up and learned to think for myself, and follow my own beliefs. That's a two way street, of course, and not some epiphany reserved for once-liberals. I'm not some hilljack from a "holler" in the hills of WV. I'm an educated person, with two degrees and a nationally certified behavioral analyst, so I hope no one uses the "education" angle. You probably won't, I'm just preempting it. lol

[tom the pit leader]

That first <_< wasn't very "bipartisan" of you, now was it? Anyways....

He won the election without my vote, as well. That's the beauty of having the ability to vote.

Truthfully, he will need the approval of Americans from every walk of life (that's me, and James Davis, and others). Once Conservatives (I'm only speaking of Conservatives, and will not put words in the mouth of any liberals on here) set their mind to something, they don't quit (ie- Amnesty bill, anyone?). Of course, it doesn't have to be Conservative vs. Liberal. As Americans, if we are united, we can move mountains.

Also, Melidan, that is a beautiful picture.

I was once brainwashed by those with a liberal agenda (i.e. College), but I grew up and learned to think for myself, and follow my own beliefs. That's a two way street, of course, and not some epiphany reserved for once-liberals. I'm not some hilljack from a "holler" in the hills of WV. I'm an educated person, with two degrees and a nationally certified behavioral analyst, so I hope no one uses the "education" angle. You probably won't, I'm just preempting it. lol


But my jackass question of the night is:

how can you claim a degree from college as an asset and denouce college as libral at the same time? Seems to me those are mutually exclusive.

Sorry, but I always wanted to do that.

And the moral of your story is thinking is dangerous and bad and needs to be outlawd here in America ASAP.

[Hubb]

But my jackass question of the night is:

how can you claim a degree from college as an asset and denouce college as libral at the same time? Seems to me those are mutually exclusive.

Sorry, but I always wanted to do that.

And the moral of your story is thinking is dangerous and bad and needs to be outlawd here in America ASAP.

Show me where I "denounced" college. I denounced the majority of those who walked through the halls of academia as liberal. So, no, they are not mutually exclusive.

Also, I have no clue what you are talking about with your last statement.

I said:

Of course, it doesn't have to be Conservative vs. Liberal. As Americans, if we are united, we can move mountains.

I don't really appreciate words being put in my mouth. If you're going to attempt to make some witty attempt at sarcasm of my posts, at least use my words, instead of using outdated stereotypes in an attempt to "pigeonhole" me. I could use some "talking point" stereotype about you and your views, but I'm not going to do that, because it gets us nowhere.

[tom the pit leader]

Show me where I "denounced" college. I denounced the majority of those who walked through the halls of academia as liberal. So, no, they are not mutually exclusive.

Also, I have no clue what you are talking about with your last statement.

I said:



I don't really appreciate words being put in my mouth. If you're going to attempt to make some witty attempt at sarcasm of my posts, at least use my words, instead of using outdated stereotypes in an attempt to "pigeonhole" me. I could use some "talking point" stereotype about you and your views, but I'm not going to do that, because it gets us nowhere.

I'm not so good at being sarcastic online, I'm better in RL, so I appoligieze.

I ment that if you were educated at a college and got a degree, then that degree came from liberals which you said was "brainwashing" which usually caries a negative conotation.

Also, not to turn this into a flame war, you did say that you learned to think for yourself and stopped being a liberal, although perhaps not in that order. Being a liberal, I would see that as bad, and thus the cause as bad. If the cause was thought, then I would thus have to be anti thought.

You failed to see what I was trying to do, and I blame that more on my ineptness at internet sacasam-humor.

Also, I wasn't responding to the section you quoted, in fact, somewhere here I think I made the same point.

[Hubb]

Also, not to turn this into a flame war, you did say that you learned to think for yourself and stopped being a liberal, although perhaps not in that order. Being a liberal, I would see that as bad, and thus the cause as bad. If the cause was thought, then I would thus have to be anti thought.

I also said:

That's a two way street, of course, and not some epiphany reserved for once-liberals.

Meaning that just because I was liberal and now consider myself Conservative, doesn't mean the reverse doesn't happen, as well. Hence, the "two way street" analogy.

I did say I learned to "think for myself," but that doesn't mean I woke up on the Conservative side of the bed all of a sudden. I continued to question things that I was told by my professors. That quote doesn't have anything to do with my political beliefs, of course. It simply meant I didn't take everything at face value. I still don't drink the kool-aid people try to give me, and I still ask questions, regardless of the political leaning of the person I'm having a conversation with at the time.

As far as thought is concerned, I've seen a lot of media and others try to correlate my political beliefs to my education. Obviously, I don't mean me, specifically, but Conservatives in general. You may find the exact opposite, of course, but as I said I'm only speaking from my political viewpoint and won't put words in the mouths of others (at least not tonight :P).

Also, I apologize if my response to you was snappish. I'm tired. LOL.

[tom the pit leader]

Also, I apologize if my response to you was snappish. I'm tired. LOL
Well, my comment wasn't quite as good as it might have been. I'm just glad someone else didn't turn this into a real flame war.

[Hubb]

I'm just glad someone else didn't turn this into a real flame war.

Wasn't going to be me, dude. I'm tired of that stuff.

[James Davis]

Aaah man! :(

* James Davis takes popcorn back out of the microwave.

[Melidan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=donoy6QvRvk

Mr. Black President, yo Obama for real
They gotta put your face on the five-thousand dollar bill
My president is black, my Lambo's blue
And I'll be goddamned if my rims ain't too

Awwwwwwwwww SHIT, YA HERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRD!!!!!!!! ROFL!

[mhawk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=donoy6QvRvk



Awwwwwwwwww SHIT, YA HERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRD!!!!!!!! ROFL!

Man We Congratulate You Already Homie
See I Motivate The Thugs Right
You Motivate Us Homie
Thats What It Is, This A Hands On Policy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmKR6evZRQQ

"yo hommie"

[Melidan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmKR6evZRQQ

"yo hommie"

BOOYAKASHA! :D

[Hubb]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmKR6evZRQQ

"yo hommie"

I've never seen that movie, but that was funny as hell.

[Darth Elecian]

Well... Here we are.

I'm sure none of you know this, nor may any of you believe this, but I was once a big time liberal. I still have my Clinton/Gore '96 button that I wore on my backpack, and I even sported a "Bush Cheated" bumper sticker. I was pro-choice and an avowed atheist. I chalk it up to an ignorance of youth (no disrespect meant towards any of you younger guys). However over time I started leaning more conservative, led first by my mistrust of the global warming movement, but my full political flip came on the morning of September 11, 2001. I was resolved to stand behind my country and our Commander in Chief.

Fast forward to now and im a full blooded conservative, with a belief in God, and a great dislike of our current President. But that mistrust grew out of his failures, however I still respect him.

Now, on the rare occasions when I do pray, its always for my family and nothing else.. But yesterday morning before I went to bed, I prayed that John McCain would win the election. Not simply because of the ideals and beliefs about America that I have, but because I was quite frankly terrified of an Obama presidency.

This morning, I will pray that God gives our new President the strength and wisdom to see us through the next 4 years. I'll pray that he will prove me wrong.. Because if he proves me right, it will be the end of the Republic that we know and love. I will give him the benefit of the doubt, only because I have no choice. I will do what a patriot does, dress and cover and stand behind our Commander in Chief.

Please prove me wrong President Obama, please.

http://www.reversespins.com/pvf2.jpg
God save the United States


Interesting, and a bit heartwarming. I figured that you are a conservative Melidan and alot of present day conservatives were at one point lefties before their conversion. I am also glad that you were able to find Christ. A good friend of mine was the most avowed atheist I knew until recently when he accepted Jesus as well.

Even though I would like to get back at the Liberals for trashing President Bush the minute he won the 200 election and for hoping defeat in Iraq/War on Terror would lead them more votes, I believe that all conservatives shouldn't follow that example and instead show respect for the incoming President Obama. It doesn't mean we should just fall in line like some liberals want us conservatives to do but we should also call Obama and Liberal Congress out on wrong issues. I just hope that Obama and Congress will keep to their promise of bipartisanship and that they aren't able to get through everything on their liberal agenda.

[Assarax]

Even though I would like to get back at the Liberals for trashing President Bush the minute he won the 200 election and for hoping defeat in Iraq/War on Terror would lead them more votes, I believe that all conservatives shouldn't follow that example and instead show respect for the incoming President Obama. It doesn't mean we should just fall in line like some liberals want us conservatives to do but we should also call Obama and Liberal Congress out on wrong issues. I just hope that Obama and Congress will keep to their promise of bipartisanship and that they aren't able to get through everything on their liberal agenda.


So, basically you want the opposite of the behavior shown by the conservatives at McCain's support rally/concession speech on Tuesday. Good show. It's the duty of all Americans to call out their president and congress on issues they find unfair or inappropriate. However, to call the man out before he has even started, and saying "people that voted for him are idiots", or "oh, there goes the country, I better start stocking up on ammo", is just silly and immature in my eyes. You still have no idea the type of president he is going to be because, as we all know, every politician is a dirty sack of shit, who rarely makes good on their campaign promises.

[Hubb]

So, basically you want the opposite of the behavior shown by the conservatives at McCain's support rally/concession speech on Tuesday. Good show. It's the duty of all Americans to call out their president and congress on issues they find unfair or inappropriate. However, to call the man out before he has even started, and saying "people that voted for him are idiots", or "oh, there goes the country, I better start stocking up on ammo", is just silly and immature in my eyes. You still have no idea the type of president he is going to be because, as we all know, every politician is a dirty sack of shit, who rarely makes good on their campaign promises.

Don't forget people did the same thing in 2000 with their "He isn't my President," and "He stole the election" crap. At that time, no one knew what type of President Bush would be-hindsight is 20/20, of course, but in 2000 no one could project. We didn't have half the cares we have now.

[Darth Elecian]

Don't forget people did the same thing in 2000 with their "He isn't my President," and "He stole the election" crap. At that time, no one knew what type of President Bush would be-hindsight is 20/20, of course, but in 2000 no one could project. We didn't have half the cares we have now.

Indeed, I wish that Liberals of the likes like Michael Moore, Howard Dean, and Al Franken would have just shut up about that crap that they gave to us then in 2000 and midway during Bush's 2nd term. Even now, they are getting in the conservatives' faces. Then again there are conservatives like Michael Savage that Republicans would be better off without. And now that some of those people are in control of congress, I am a bit nervous as to what they'll try to accomplish.

[Darth Elecian]

So, basically you want the opposite of the behavior shown by the conservatives at McCain's support rally/concession speech on Tuesday. Good show. It's the duty of all Americans to call out their president and congress on issues they find unfair or inappropriate. However, to call the man out before he has even started, and saying "people that voted for him are idiots", or "oh, there goes the country, I better start stocking up on ammo", is just silly and immature in my eyes. You still have no idea the type of president he is going to be because, as we all know, every politician is a dirty sack of shit, who rarely makes good on their campaign promises.

Yes, and I agree with those points Assarax.

[The Corporal]

So, basically you want the opposite of the behavior shown by the conservatives at McCain's support rally/concession speech on Tuesday. Good show. It's the duty of all Americans to call out their president and congress on issues they find unfair or inappropriate. However, to call the man out before he has even started, and saying "people that voted for him are idiots", or "oh, there goes the country, I better start stocking up on ammo", is just silly and immature in my eyes. You still have no idea the type of president he is going to be because, as we all know, every politician is a dirty sack of shit, who rarely makes good on their campaign promises.

The whole ammo deal for me isn't as much about Obama's well-known anti-gun track record as much as his potential unwillingness to stand up for the Constitution when psychotic gun-grabbers like Chuck Schumer force their illegal legislation to his desk. I think Obama's plate will be pretty full with Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the economy but I also think he won't make good on his promises to leave our gun rights alone when the time comes.

[bigdaddychacha]

The whole ammo deal for me isn't as much about Obama's well-known anti-gun track record as much as his potential unwillingness to stand up for the Constitution when psychotic gun-grabbers like Chuck Schumer force their illegal legislation to his desk. I think Obama's plate will be pretty full with Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the economy but I also think he won't make good on his promises to leave our gun rights alone when the time comes.That's better Corporal. Actually, I'm considering buying an AK assault rifle before they get re-banned again, you know, just for the hell of it! :D :M16:

[The Corporal]

That's better Corporal. Actually, I'm considering buying an AK assault rifle before they get re-banned again, you know, just for the hell of it! :D :M16:

If you can afford it, try to pick up one of the 75rd drum mags. I got a Romanian top-loader from www.jgsales.com for about $180 with shipping. When that arrives my RPK is going to look really cool. :)

[IronsightSniper]

I knew Obama was gonna win in a Land Slide.
That's because everyone(literally, 90% voted Obama) liked Obama, and chanted, "OBAMA OBAMA" in the hall ways, and I was the only one that had the balls to scream, "JOHN FUCKING McCAIN".

[tom the pit leader]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=donoy6QvRvk



Awwwwwwwwww SHIT, YA HERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRD!!!!!!!! ROFL!

Never would have taken you for a rap man, but power to you.

I love this, because it has a message, some lost to 90% of rap. Now why can't all rap be like this, about things that really matter?

[The Arbiter]

That is so fucking funny.

[IronsightSniper]

Rap was about stories about life in the hood, now it's about girls dancing, always.

[Darth Elecian]

The whole ammo deal for me isn't as much about Obama's well-known anti-gun track record as much as his potential unwillingness to stand up for the Constitution when psychotic gun-grabbers like Chuck Schumer force their illegal legislation to his desk. I think Obama's plate will be pretty full with Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the economy but I also think he won't make good on his promises to leave our gun rights alone when the time comes.

For the sake of the country, I hope he keeps true to those promises. I love my guns and religion. :sniper: :D

[Lord Necronomis]

a well regulated MILITIA, being NECESSARY for the SECURITY of a FREE STATE, the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP AND BARE ARMS shall not be infringed.

ie: people are allowed to have organized fighting units independant of the military, capable of defending themselves from an oppressive government if it comes down to it. can't defend yourself against a couple million fully automatic weapons and smart-bombs if all you can have is a semi-auto pistol and a shotgun. and considering it was written because of colonization, specifically for the US in respect to Britain, there's no other logical way to interpret those words. problem solved, unless he really is going to ignore the constitution completely.

[The Corporal]

a well regulated MILITIA, being NECESSARY for the SECURITY of a FREE STATE, the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP AND BARE ARMS shall not be infringed.

ie: people are allowed to have organized fighting units independant of the military, capable of defending themselves from an oppressive government if it comes down to it. can't defend yourself against a couple million fully automatic weapons and smart-bombs if all you can have is a semi-auto pistol and a shotgun. and considering it was written because of colonization, specifically for the US in respect to Britain, there's no other logical way to interpret those words. problem solved, unless he really is going to ignore the constitution completely.

The militia part is a precursor to the rest of the amendment. And if shotguns and pistols weren't enough to defend against an invasion (with bombs, tanks, and millions of enemy soldiers) then why did both Japan and the Soviet Union say that the reason a land invasion of the United States would be a losing proposition because of the high rate of personal gun ownership?

Yamamoto say:
You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

[tom the pit leader]

The militia part is a precursor to the rest of the amendment. And if shotguns and pistols weren't enough to defend against an invasion (with bombs, tanks, and millions of enemy soldiers) then why did both Japan and the Soviet Union say that the reason a land invasion of the United States would be a losing proposition because of the high rate of personal gun ownership?

Yamamoto say:

Indeed, and where I'm from, Yamamoto isn't exagerating. We don't have an army base, but we have the guns, ammo, and expertice to make a good size army.

Also, on tanks and helicopters, any gas station, Walmart, or convinece store in the US has all the chemicals you need to stop them dead in their tracks.

[IronsightSniper]

Well at least Barrack Obama plays vidya games.
http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i69/LordJacky/ComboBarack.jpg

[Dark Force]

I knew Obama was gonna win in a Land Slide.
That's because everyone(literally, 90% voted Obama) liked Obama, and chanted, "OBAMA OBAMA" in the hall ways, and I was the only one that had the balls to scream, "JOHN FUCKING McCAIN".

Um, Obama won 53% of the Popular vote. It was only a landslide in the electoral college. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/

But I digress...

The fact is, (I can't believe I'm saying this) bitching week is over and he is the president elect, so we need to get behind him. The conservatives need to show that they are above the liberals by giving their support to him instead of treating him like the anti-christ (Bush 2000 anyone?). If he lives up to his promises, great, maybe we'll see him again in 2012. If he doesn't, and goes after our rights (such as gun ownership), viva la révolution! :M249SAW:

[bigdaddychacha]

a well regulated MILITIA, being NECESSARY for the SECURITY of a FREE STATE, the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP AND BARE ARMS shall not be infringed.

ie: people are allowed to have organized fighting units independant of the military, capable of defending themselves from an oppressive government if it comes down to it. can't defend yourself against a couple million fully automatic weapons and smart-bombs if all you can have is a semi-auto pistol and a shotgun. and considering it was written because of colonization, specifically for the US in respect to Britain, there's no other logical way to interpret those words. problem solved, unless he really is going to ignore the constitution completely.I agree with you here, I'm tired of the NRA and gun rights advocates weakly defending their right to bare arms with stuff like, "It's my right to go hunting," or, "I want to protect myself from petty thieves..."

We have guns in order to protect ourselves from the government, period. With the way gun ownership is now and the strength of governments/militaries, that is no longer the reality.

Yamato had a point about individual annoyances with guns, but try launching an organized rebellion and see how long it takes the government to contain and repress it.

[Curtis16]

But there are states where milita's are banned

[The Corporal]

I agree with you here, I'm tired of the NRA and gun rights advocates weakly defending their right to bare arms with stuff like, "It's my right to go hunting," or, "I want to protect myself from petty thieves..."

You dare tell me I don't have the right to protect myself if I'm attacked? Get bent. You are what is wrong with this country, plain and simple. If you want to get stabbed or shot over someone trying to steal your wallet, go ahead. I plan on stopping the criminal before he gets the chance, whether I have to shoot him or he sees the gun and runs away.

[tom the pit leader]

^ this

I view it as if everyone has a gun, odds are if a robbery/rape takes place, someone on the defence is going to have the spine to stop it.

[Ayrrie]

Also, it's bear arms. Jesus christ people.

[bigdaddychacha]

Also, it's bear arms. Jesus christ people.No, I'm pretty sure we're talking about something different...I'm talking about the god-given right to wear a t-shirt; I'm not sure what you're referring to! :badgrin:

You dare tell me I don't have the right to protect myself if I'm attacked? Get bent. You are what is wrong with this country, plain and simple. If you want to get stabbed or shot over someone trying to steal your wallet, go ahead. I plan on stopping the criminal before he gets the chance, whether I have to shoot him or he sees the gun and runs away.Don't flame me, bro. I'll tell you whatever I damn-well please, you get bent. Get off your righteously indignant high horse. I never said you can't defend yourself from thieves, what I was saying (in fact, I was supporting your right to bear arms, which further makes you look retarded for jumping on me!) was that all other rights regarding guns are secondary and derivative from the need to protect yourself from a tyrranical government, and that that is the framework of the argument that gun rights advocates (like myself) should be using.

If you can't tell who is your friend and who is your enemy on a given issue, then you probably shouldn't be allowed to have guns. Really. :angry:

[The Corporal]

No, I'm pretty sure we're talking about something different...I'm talking about the god-given right to wear a t-shirt; I'm not sure what you're referring to! :badgrin:

Don't flame me, bro. I'll tell you whatever I damn-well please, you get bent. Get off your righteously indignant high horse. I never said you can't defend yourself from thieves, what I was saying (in fact, I was supporting your right to bear arms, which further makes you look retarded for jumping on me!) was that all other rights regarding guns are secondary and derivative from the need to protect yourself from a tyrranical government, and that that is the framework of the argument that gun rights advocates (like myself) should be using.

If you can't tell who is your friend and who is your enemy on a given issue, then you probably shouldn't be allowed to have guns. Really. :angry:
You want to know what I'm angry about? I'll quote it again for effect:
I'm tired of the NRA and gun rights advocates weakly defending their right to bare arms with stuff like, "It's my right to go hunting," or, "I want to protect myself from petty thieves..."
This is you telling me that I shouldn't be armed to protect myself from the real, tangible threat of someone trying to rob me or others in my general area at gun- or knife-point. Anyone who tells this to me or another person can go straight to hell.

[Lord Necronomis]

Actually, I'll defend him and say that what the quote is saying is: "I'm tired of people not being able to defend what I defend properly." Ya'll are arguing with each other over agreeing on something. >.>

[bigdaddychacha]

You want to know what I'm angry about? I'll quote it again for effect:

This is you telling me that I shouldn't be armed to protect myself from the real, tangible threat of someone trying to rob me or others in my general area at gun- or knife-point. Anyone who tells this to me or another person can go straight to hell.Do you have the mental capacity to post without flaming?!?

You're still deliberately missing the point of what I said. Try again. Do not collect $200 as you pass Go.

[Assarax]

I SO do enjoy watching these threads... people saying stuff like "you dare tell me" and then go on about how everyone who has a different view than them should change their views to fit theirs.

Corporal, cha is right... you just misread his statement. I think what he meant was that the NRA really hasn't had a strong argument in defending the right to bear arms, and has generally satisfied themselves with using the same arguments of self defense and hunting (even though the 2nd amendment was still probably intended for the purposes of having state militias, but that's not the issue here).

In any case, keep it civil, no flaming. Any more and I lock the thread. And we don't want that do we?

[The Corporal]

Do you have the mental capacity to post without flaming?!?

You're still deliberately missing the point of what I said. Try again. Do not collect $200 as you pass Go.

I'll flame anyone who wants to deny one of my basic human rights. Let's shorten it again:

I'm tired of the NRA and gun rights advocates weakly defending their right to bare arms with stuff like, "It's my right to go hunting," or, "I want to protect myself from petty thieves..."
This is flame-worthy, it really is.

[Assarax]

I'll flame anyone who wants to deny one of my basic human rights. Let's shorten it again:


This is flame-worthy, it really is.

No, it isn't. Read my above post.

[Melidan]

Like the founding fathers were all pansies who hated those mean muskets and COULD NOT understand why ANYBODY needed guns to protect themselves for an overreaching govt, because something like that just DIDNT happen in their time!

Oy! Guns are for national guard units only!! kekekekekekekeke!!!111

[Lord Necronomis]

Except he didn't say it was wrong. He didn't say it was to be taken. He never said he didn't support your rights. He just said he was tired of people using weaker arguments to support the rights the the both of you support. Regardless of the morallity or passion of the reasoning, the amendment does not specify criminals or home protection. The law is the law, bypassing passion or even logic. All he said was "I'm tired of people using things that aren't legally defined as a legal argument for what I support."

[The Corporal]

Except he didn't say it was wrong. He didn't say it was to be taken. He never said he didn't support your rights. He just said he was tired of people using weaker arguments to support the rights the the both of you support. Regardless of the morallity or passion of the reasoning, the amendment does not specify criminals or home protection. The law is the law, bypassing passion or even logic. All he said was "I'm tired of people using things that aren't legally defined as a legal argument for what I support."

The Second Amendment specifies nothing beyond the necessity of a militia to a free state and the individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not state what purpose our firearms are to be used for. To call self-defense a "weak argument" is to suggest that we all let the most violent rapists and murderers into our homes to do with us as they please. I will not stand for such a statement, even from a fellow gun owner.

[Lord Necronomis]

Morally, pathologically, even ethically it is not a weak argument, but under the confines of the law it is. In legal text, and literal interpretations of a legal document, that's all that matters. You're mad at him for agreeing with you, and wanting someone to defend the rights the both of you support in a manner that people will listen to. That's pretty much like, I don't know, Britain getting mad at the US for joining WWII because the US said "looks like you need some help."

[The Corporal]

Morally, pathologically, even ethically it is not a weak argument, but under the confines of the law it is. In legal text, and literal interpretations of a legal document, that's all that matters.
There are no confines on the use of firearms as it pertains to the Second Amendment. There are local/state/federal laws that limit the procurement/type/use of firearms, true, but I don't know of any laws that state "thou shalt not use a firearm for self-defense" in such plain language. There are retarded laws like the one here in Wisconsin that considers any knife with a blade longer than 3" illegal to carry on your person (some bullshit about 'concealed with deadly intent') and there are still places in the country that don't have castle laws, but in the context of the Second Amendment, there are no restrictions on gun use. The Second Amendment is a part of the most important legal document in the country: the Constitution supersedes all other laws, therefore any law that contravenes the Constitution is illegal. Since the Second Amendment does not place restrictions on what kind of activities guns may be used for, anyone who claims that self-defense (along with hunting, target shooting for practice and sport, and the responsibility of the people to cast down an oppressive government - a responsibility outlined by the Founding Fathers) is a weak argument for maintaining our Second Amendment rights should be taken out back and beaten with a hose.

The anti-gun cabal will respond to such reasoning with "well, we restrict gun ownership to non-felons and people who are not insane, why can't we restrict the ways in which people can use their guns - after all, killing someone with a gun is wrong." The answer to this is that keeping legal guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane is something that is good for everyone, but telling people they can't defend themselves only benefits the criminals that we're so afraid of. For the record, any crime that can be committed with a gun can be done with a knife, a baseball bat, or a person's hands and feet - if anything, using a gun to commit a crime should add a multiplier to the jail sentence (banning guns because they're used to commit murder is as stupid as trying to pass a ban on feet because people get kicked to death). Self-defense may seem like a weak argument in the light of some gun laws, but I contend that such gun laws are illegal in the face of common sense and the sovereignty of the Constitution over all other laws.

You're mad at him for agreeing with you, and wanting someone to defend the rights the both of you support in a manner that people will listen to. That's pretty much like, I don't know, Britain getting mad at the US for joining WWII because the US said "looks like you need some help."
My problem with bigdaddychacha is that he rolls over when the anti-gun, "he-only-raped-that-girl-because-he-wasn't-loved-as-a-child" pro-criminal lefties tell us we can't use our guns to protect ourselves, our families, and our fellow citizens from the depraved few that enjoy harming others. Nobody tells me I can't enjoy the "unalienable rights" of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" that are outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Libs everywhere complain about how the Patriot Act violates the First and Fourth Amendments but tell me to STFU when I say that most gun laws are a violation of my Second Amendment rights. So I say to them and to anyone who wants to tell me what I can and can't do with my guns: "fuck off, come and get them!"

[Lord Necronomis]

a lot of typing, and still failed to touch the inherent argument about what the second amendment's words states. That's the point. The only thing it does say it the "militia" and "free state" bits. Everything else is open for interpretation. "All powers not expressly given to the national government are reserved for the states." However, since it's an amendment, and not an article (even then it wouldn't be bullet proof. . .no pun intended), it can be altered or completely removed. That's what the basis of the argument in Washington is over, and that's why it matters of the legality based on the wording of the amendment itself, not your own personal interpretation. And the "if you want them, come and get them" sounds like my brother. Thought that was kind of amusing. But that's the thing, some of the anti-gun extremists would use that phrase as ammunition against you, able to call that an "extremist statement" or something about inciting civil unrest.

And noone ever rolled over. Noone ever supported the restriction of guns for self defense. All that was said was what everyone else has said he meant. At this point, saying it again would be beating a dead horse, so I'll leave it at that.

[The Corporal]

a lot of typing, and still failed to touch the inherent argument about what the second amendment's words states. That's the point. The only thing it does say it the "militia" and "free state" bits. Everything else is open for interpretation. "All powers not expressly given to the national government are reserved for the states." However, since it's an amendment, and not an article (even then it wouldn't be bullet proof. . .no pun intended), it can be altered or completely removed. That's what the basis of the argument in Washington is over, and that's why it matters of the legality based on the wording of the amendment itself, not your own personal interpretation. And the "if you want them, come and get them" sounds like my brother. Thought that was kind of amusing. But that's the thing, some of the anti-gun extremists would use that phrase as ammunition against you, able to call that an "extremist statement" or something about inciting civil unrest.

And noone ever rolled over. Noone ever supported the restriction of guns for self defense. All that was said was what everyone else has said he meant. At this point, saying it again would be beating a dead horse, so I'll leave it at that.
I strongly disagree with the underlined parts. "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you people not get?

Also, by the reasoning in the bolded part, section 2 of the 14th Amendment is invalid. You can change the articles, it's just that there is no provision for removing obsolete text from the original text of the Constitution. I thought that needed to be mentioned, as a demonstration of your knowledge of law. :P

[Lord Necronomis]

I know you can change articles, thus my comment on even then it not being completely solid. However it is more likely for amendments to be altered or removed. And yes, I say removed, not out of ignorance, but for ease of typing. Removed as in removed from activity, or removed from law.
That's one very, very bad habit, relying on attacks of a person you don't know to try and solidify your point. Don't assume someone's ignorant based on a diction that could very easily be applied in a context that is valid.

And that is the only clear reasoning for the -why- of the "shall not be infringed" which is the root of the argument. Otherwise it's just like a "We should have free donuts." why? "Because a sign said free donuts." We took the sign down. "You're not allowed to do that, cause it said free donuts." You need to back the what with a why. It's actually very simple. Now please, stop trying so desperately to save ground by proving a dying point, and just admit that PEOPLE ARE AGREEING WITH YOU in the original argument. Arguing the tidbits and details with people that AGREE WITH YOU makes the entire side look bad, especially you, no matter who is right. Just let it be. I am, I've said all I need to say and really don't see the need in badgering against someone that believes in mostly the same things I do about what a written law says in regards to why we both should have what we both appreciate.

[Dark Force]

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

[Melidan]

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

QFT

[The Corporal]

I know you can change articles, thus my comment on even then it not being completely solid. However it is more likely for amendments to be altered or removed. And yes, I say removed, not out of ignorance, but for ease of typing. Removed as in removed from activity, or removed from law.
That's one very, very bad habit, relying on attacks of a person you don't know to try and solidify your point. Don't assume someone's ignorant based on a diction that could very easily be applied in a context that is valid.

And that is the only clear reasoning for the -why- of the "shall not be infringed" which is the root of the argument. Otherwise it's just like a "We should have free donuts." why? "Because a sign said free donuts." We took the sign down. "You're not allowed to do that, cause it said free donuts." You need to back the what with a why. It's actually very simple. Now please, stop trying so desperately to save ground by proving a dying point, and just admit that PEOPLE ARE AGREEING WITH YOU in the original argument. Arguing the tidbits and details with people that AGREE WITH YOU makes the entire side look bad, especially you, no matter who is right. Just let it be. I am, I've said all I need to say and really don't see the need in badgering against someone that believes in mostly the same things I do about what a written law says in regards to why we both should have what we both appreciate.

For the last time, The Bill of Rights is not some 'free donuts' sign that we can ignore whenever we damn well please. It is the law above all other laws. You can't ignore just because you don't like it. You can't tell me that I "don't know what I'm talking about" because you don't believe that the Constitution should be difficult to change, just to suit the fleeting whims of the people. If you and cha really do appreciate the Second Amendment, why campaign against it so much? Why suggest that any defense of it is 'weak' and 'irrelevant' in the face of unconstitutional laws? It boggles my mind and suggests to me that you really don't believe in the Second Amendment, the Constitution, or the rights of free people. If you actually believe in those things, stand up and fight for them instead of freely throwing away your rights under pressure from anti-freedom, libtard politicians.

[Lord Necronomis]

I'm not doing this anymore. Go back and read what people have actually said, and just stop, okay? Noone is ignoring anything, and if you really did misinterpret what I said to that degree, saying anything else isn't gonna make you understand.

[Ayrrie]

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

More quoting for truth.