Tea party groups fire on each other

unsung

OutOfBreath wrote:

And why the government would need or want to go around rounding up firearms for control is beyond me. That's just the boogeyman of the US right wing and the wacky militias. Real control has nothing to do with firearms or weapons.

Peace
Dan

That was done during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

OutOfBreath

unsung wrote:

OutOfBreath wrote:

And why the government would need or want to go around rounding up firearms for control is beyond me. That's just the boogeyman of the US right wing and the wacky militias. Real control has nothing to do with firearms or weapons.

Peace
Dan

That was done during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Really? Whaddayaknow.

But relevant to the story is that a year later the senate (part of government, no?) voted overwhelmingly in favour of this not being allowed ever again, no matter what the crisis.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0714-06.htm

So, no, they're not gonna take your precious guns. And now, not even in a crisis. So strike that off the "communist-plot-signs" list.

My point is still that the amount of firearms in private homes is pretty irrelevant to the power and authority of government. The authority of government stems from people electing them, and those elected are also people. Your greatest protection against government abuse is that the police and military are also people like yourself. Like in this case where your fellow american senators ruled that this should not have happened, and voted overwhelmingly to ensure it doesn't again...

Peace
Dan

cajunkiwi

unsung wrote:

OutOfBreath wrote:

And why the government would need or want to go around rounding up firearms for control is beyond me. That's just the boogeyman of the US right wing and the wacky militias. Real control has nothing to do with firearms or weapons.

Peace
Dan

That was done during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

As someone who lives in Louisiana, and was here during Katrina, it wasn't that big a deal down here. I actually didn't even know confiscations had taken place, and I was working as a triage volunteer with evacuees for eight weeks (so it's not like I was avoiding the aftermath of the storm).

Even if it did happen, I think the 2nd Amendment causes more problems than it solves in America. Somehow "you're allowed to own a gun to defend yourself" has turned into "everyone should own as many guns as possible just in case they want to blow their drunk next-door-neighbor to smithereens." Somehow, being a gun owner became woven tightly into what it means to be an "American" - and the end result is one of the highest murder rates among developed countries. Having an argument with your spouse? Why talk your way through it when you've got a .38 on the table? (this happened here in Louisiana recently - a sheriff was arguing with his wife and shot her to end the argument). It isn't 1860 anymore - there aren't "injuns" running around Manhattan scalping people, though you wouldn't know it to talk to some people. Half the conservatives down here act like you should be allowed to shoot someone right between the eyes if they as much as look at you funny - because that's how you do it in "Good ol' 'mer'ca."

A lot of the problems are also caused by the people who are legally allowed to own, and are trained to use, guns. Since a good percentage of the population seems to think 2010 = still the era of Wyatt Earp and Billy the Kid, when "I have a badge" and "I love the Wild West" collide there are problems. Just ask the family members of the people shot by cops after Katrina (you know, like the mentally disabled guy who was shot in the back and then beaten by the NOPD, or the unarmed 17-year-old kid who was killed by a cop on the other side of the bridge from him). Four cops are facing the death penalty for murdering and then covering up the murders of unarmed civilians in New Orleans after Katrina.

Gun fanatics are also mostly (in my opinion) borderline insane. I got an email from a hardcore Republican I know (I want to clarify that they're not just "right" they're "faaaar right") saying we need to get rid of Obama because he's trampling all over the Second Amendment. What was their proof? An alleged bill that would've made people keep their guns in places kids can't access them in their homes, would've made them take lessons before they were allowed to own a gun, would've made it legal for law enforcement officers to check to make sure you were keeping your gun in a secure location, and would've made them declare all gun sales to the police, so they can track the guns. I read the points of the alleged bill and couldn't find anything really unreasonable - if you want to own a weapon that is solely designed to kill people, then you should have to prove you're responsible enough to own it. But to the nut who sent me the email, it represented Obama singling out hunters and trying to outlaw deer hunting.

Fewer guns in society is not a bad thing. Exhibit A-Z for me is my father-in-law, who defended the Second Amendment to me once by saying that if he sees someone he doesn't recognize coming across his front lawn, then he has to assume that that person is coming to kill him, and therefore he should be allowed to shoot first.

TriumphantAngel

cajunkiwi wrote:

Fewer guns in society is not a bad thing. Exhibit A-Z for me is my father-in-law, who defended the Second Amendment to me once by saying that if he sees someone he doesn't recognize coming across his front lawn, then he has to assume that that person is coming to kill him, and therefore he should be allowed to shoot first.

see, how ridiculous is that?

fear is the path to the dark side. it really is.

markin ball

OutOfBreath wrote:

Better-man wrote:

Agreed, but the angry underclass would never rise up and fight on an empty stomach, throwing stones at tanks. Civil unrest in US would lead to a tiananmen square type stand offs, grim as it seems :(

On the contrary, it is precisely when they have empty stomachs, and a poor outlook to filling them in the future, that they DO revolt. People generally don't revolt unless their lives depend on it. The US have enough food, and it will be relatively simple to keep the peace with a social programme or two.

There may be protests from various groups to achieve limited political goals. The civil rights movemet largely succeeded for instance. But they didn't change the fundamentals of society, they infact appealed to them in making their case. I dont think we'll see Tiananmen square incidents, but rather more tea party-type stuff and perhaps minor Gwhatever meeting riots.

Peace
Dan

Dude is right. Americans still have way too much to lose to actually full on revolt. We've got a long way to go before we hit rock bottom.

Gary Carter

mrvedderson wrote:

I think its funny when they show tea party events. Most of the people that attend probably wont even be alive come the next election

lmfao


i'm claming this as part of my sig

mysticweed

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

haffajappa wrote:

As an outsider... I never understand what they mean by "taking back the country"
Were you some sort of Utopia before Obama came into office?

apparently nobody cared what happened between 2000-2008 because it was their guy in the oval office..

obama wins by a landslide and suddenly they lost their country...

Did the GW administration not overlook the constitution a time or two?

Cosmo

unsung wrote:

Can a revolution actually happen in this day and age? Or will they simply institute martial law and go door to door and confiscate all weapons to ensure compliance?

...
A Revolution in America will not happen now or in the near future.
Why?
People care more about themselves and would never consider getting arrested, imprisoned or shot and killed for their ideals. They will 'support' those on the front lines by saying "I support the Revolution"... but, getting to them to pick up a firearm and go up against the police then the state police then the FBI then the U.S. Military... no fucking way. it's a hell of a lot easier (and safer) to sit on the couch, stroking your gunstock and saying, "From My cold dead hands" than actually risking the reality of your cold dead hands.

Cosmo

Jason P wrote:

This is another fine example showing the immense difference in different factions of the overall tea party movement. I break the tea party down into three groups:

1) Average Joe - Age 30 - 65; Conservative; Works for small business or farms; Concerned about family, mortgage, and stability. This group makes up the majority of the "Tea Party".

2) GOP Hi-jacked Tea Party Fronts - Conservative strategists who are trying to control group 1 by becoming the official voice through propaganda and fear-mongering.

3) Paranoid-Ultra-Conservative-Guy-Who-Starts-Local-Chapter & Whose 15 Year-Old Daughter Taught To Run Blog - This is a very, very small percentage of the group but they attract media attention like flies on honey. These people are known to talk out of their ass while a microphone is stuck up it (although this describes about 95% of this board . . . including myself at times ). Democrat strategist love these people for they market these personalities to cast the Tea Party as loons. (this is like assuming everyone in the NFL acts like T.O. or Chad Ochocinco)

Anyway, that's my five-minute analysis. Everyone I know that associates with the Tea Party falls into category one.

...
You are probably right on your assessment of Tea Party demographics. Unfortunately, the majority are being driven by the the minority with the loudest megaphone. That being, the Republican Party and their media mouthpiece, FOX News and Rush Limbaugh. FOX News has PNAC Chairman, William Kristol and Bush Architect, Karl Rove on board. FOX News advertise Tea Party rallies where FOX celebrities, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck make appearances and speeches. Sarah Palin is the darling of the Tea Party.
The agenda of the Tea Party is the Republican Agenda of replacing Democrats, not with Independent candidates, with Republicans.
The Tea Party began as a Grass Roots operation to repace all seated representatives with Independent (typically, Libertarian) candidates... but it has since been consumed by the Republican Party. The Tea Party is about as 'Independent' as the Republican Party.

VINNY GOOMBA

Cosmo wrote:

Jason P wrote:

This is another fine example showing the immense difference in different factions of the overall tea party movement. I break the tea party down into three groups:

1) Average Joe - Age 30 - 65; Conservative; Works for small business or farms; Concerned about family, mortgage, and stability. This group makes up the majority of the "Tea Party".

2) GOP Hi-jacked Tea Party Fronts - Conservative strategists who are trying to control group 1 by becoming the official voice through propaganda and fear-mongering.

3) Paranoid-Ultra-Conservative-Guy-Who-Starts-Local-Chapter & Whose 15 Year-Old Daughter Taught To Run Blog - This is a very, very small percentage of the group but they attract media attention like flies on honey. These people are known to talk out of their ass while a microphone is stuck up it (although this describes about 95% of this board . . . including myself at times ). Democrat strategist love these people for they market these personalities to cast the Tea Party as loons. (this is like assuming everyone in the NFL acts like T.O. or Chad Ochocinco)

Anyway, that's my five-minute analysis. Everyone I know that associates with the Tea Party falls into category one.

...
You are probably right on your assessment of Tea Party demographics. Unfortunately, the majority are being driven by the the minority with the loudest megaphone. That being, the Republican Party and their media mouthpiece, FOX News and Rush Limbaugh. FOX News has PNAC Chairman, William Kristol and Bush Architect, Karl Rove on board. FOX News advertise Tea Party rallies where FOX celebrities, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck make appearances and speeches. Sarah Palin is the darling of the Tea Party.
The agenda of the Tea Party is the Republican Agenda of replacing Democrats, not with Independent candidates, with Republicans.
The Tea Party began as a Grass Roots operation to repace all seated representatives with Independent (typically, Libertarian) candidates... but it has since been consumed by the Republican Party. The Tea Party is about as 'Independent' as the Republican Party.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8MO7fkZ ... ure=avmsc2