Morton

I said they are being overtaken by a very conservative element, The TEA Party, and they have had an influx of Extremely Christian members as well. Which has done more harm to this Nation they any party or movement in recent years. They have taken conservatism so far to the right it makes Ronald Reagan look like a hippie. Prior to this mess I was an atheist Republican, I agree with a lot of their views on Foreign Issues, and some of their Domestic ideas appealed to me as well. However it was during the Debt Ceiling Crisis that lowered our credit rating that I realized that the older. reasonable faction of the Republicans where being overrun by the more extreme Right Wing Fanatics who had decided to throw politics out the window and adopt the ways of a spoiled child who isn't getting their way, and just say "NO!" They refused to compromise to save the nation, and basically strong-armed the Republican Party into refusing every bill the Democrats put on the table, and at the same time put bills so outrageously unfair that the Democrats had no choice but to refuse. That started by separation from the Right and started me on the path to where I stand now. The Republican Party is in despair, the 2012 elections proved that the Republicans are no long in tune to the majority of Americans. As for Occupy Wall Street how is "A reduction in the influence of corporations on politics, more balanced distribution of income, more and better jobs, bank reform (especially to curtail speculative trading by banks), forgiveness of student loan debt, or other relief for indebted students, and alleviation of the foreclosure situation" radical? Also please stop using Liberal as an insult. It isn't a dirty word.

MUST. RESIST. URGE. TO. EDIT. TITLE. TO. SAY. GEARHART! Alright im goin to sleep. too much liquor lol

Captain Giraffe I agree with you completely. Very good post.

Oathkeepers seems to be another of these organizations that is promoting their own agenda. Sure they claim to want to uphold the Constitution, however look at one of their tenets: However Article III Section 2 Paragraph 1 of the very Constitution they claim to uphold says otherwise: Which basically means that they are the Supreme Authority on the Constitution. They decide what is, and isn't Constitutional. Which means they don't actually plan on upholding anything other then their view of the Constitution. As a student of History, this actually worries me, as I can see the parallels to other paramilitary organizations that have lead to the downfall of democracy.

Alverez, I was only responding with the same scorn that was in the OP. The whole democrats/communist line. Which in my experience is only uttered by the far right who insist that Obama is going to take their weapons, and other delusional things. And it was directed to O'Hare. I didn't even look at your post.

So here are some of my first painted models for my Space Marines, the Knights of Redemption.

Only among the Far Right are they considered the same.

I agree Lafy, no one even mentioned the NDAA or Patriot Acts. The two biggest threats to our liberty.

Thanks guys, and gals. Your the best.

You guys are crazy. OH THE GUVMENT GONNA TAKE OUR GUN!! is a stupid viewpoint. It isn't going to happen. America has a gun culture that is ingrained in every child since birth. At worst they will make assault weapons illegal to own, big freaking deal. It should be illegal to own a weapon who's only purpose is to commit mass murder/killings. It not only would reduce violent crime, but keep our police officers safe. I'll let Mr. John Adams, Second President of these United States have the floor, over to you Mr. Adams: Basically firearms in the hands of the citizens, when used at their discretion, with the exception of legitimate self defense, and in the service of the armed forces (Dick Act of 1903 made militias into the National Guard) destroys all laws and liberty. Also if the majority of the people wish for stronger regulations on firearms, how is it being forced on you? Have you forgotten what a Democracy is O'Hare? Or is power in the hands of the few something you Fascist/Republicans believe in? (See what I did there? Democrats are in no way communists, just as not all Republicans are Fascists.)

And your point was? Sure they where labeled as Democrats, but the thing is political views shift over time. For example, The Republicans under Reagan where conservatives, but they knew how to compromise and make politics work. Present day Republicans have been overrun and taken over by the fanatical Christian Right and are in the middle of a party civil war. To the Republicans of today, Ronald Reagan, the patron Saint of American Conservatism, would be considered a RINO, or a Republican In Name Only.

Bogus Quote. The actual quote: A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies. ---George Washington's First Annual Message to Congress (January 8, 1790) http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws. ---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788) Also it would appear at least some of our Founding Fathers would agree that there is a proper use of fire arms, as in legitimate self-defense, and militia duty. They where also concerned about the misuse of them.

Nope. I cannot see any reason to talk on the phone while I'm taking a dump. Now I do text and surf the web when I take poo but I don't talk.

I'm I the only one who turns those icons over peoples heads off?

I see your Star Wars and Trek and raise you a Warhammer 40k.

Last time I researched this they where believed to have nuclear arms that are the technological equivalent of our early nukes from the late 40's early 50's. No idea if this is still true.

People still use IE? WTF is wrong with them?

I've been told it is pretty funny if you are stoned. I have only watched it drunk, and that was mainly because I forgot how to stand up and find the remote and by forgot, I mean I was to drunk to walk.

So I recognized Tupac, but who were the white guys in the second picture?

Oh, you must have thought I was being literal. I wasn't. They are a pretty cool music performance group, plus it is Steampunk, so you really can't go wrong there.

About Steam Powered Giraffe Three military robots developed in the 1890's whose skills are no longer needed by the long-dead men who created them. Instead, they have turned their mechanical precision to harmony, which they would like to share with you through these videos.

Obviously the ruling is legal and we are going to follow it. However this is a debate, and I was debating my views.

So just to add something here. Members of the Militias where required to provide their own weapons and ammo. So it makes sense that the Fathers would, as part of maintaining a militia, would add an amendment to ensure that the members of the said militia, aka private citizens, would be allowed to have firearms. So using historical context, to me at least, it is pretty clear that you are allowed to carry a firearm if you are part of a militia. However there has been a paradigm shift in our nation. We no longer look down upon the military like we use to, instead of being suspicious of it, we treat them as heroes. Also Militias no longer play a vital role in national defense and, with the passing of the Dick Act of 1903, have become a relic of the past. With this said, I'm not against the private ownership of guns. It is part of our culture, and one of our Natural Rights to own them, weather it is for Hunting, entertainment, or home defense. However I am against people using fully automatic weapons with drum magazines. There is no legitimate use of these weapons, other that to harm your fellow man. Also I'm against people who "interpret" the Second Amendment to mean they need these weapons to protect themselves from the government. No where is it written that we have the right to bear arms to overthrow the government. Now the Declaration of Independence does mention this, however it is not a legal document like the Constitution. I will admit that District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) ruled that "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" However there was a dissenting opinion. Justice Stevens argued that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only. Which is further backed up by The Oxford English Dictionary, which defines the term to bear arms as: "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight," dating to about 1330.

Actually the early US didn't like or trust a standing army, which is why the Well regulated Militia is necessary for the security of a free state. The US believed that militias made up of citizens would be less tyrannical then a standing army. Now the "2 year war" against a "tyrannical militia" they talk about just shows they're lacking a history. They refer to Shay's Rebellion, which wasn't really a war, more like a couple of protests and a skirmish all confined in the state of Massachusetts with no Federal involvement at all. Also the rebels where not tyrannical at all, and it could be argued that the Privately Funded Militia the Governor of MA created was more tyrannical. In fact Shay's rebellion actually helped the supporters of strong government. Honestly I wouldn't trust these guys. They are lacking basic knowledge of the framing of the Constitution, and Early US history in general. EDIT: Wait a minute, aren't these guys a comedy duo? Were you trolling us Yama?