FREEDOM RALLY Saturday, April 18th 2009!

[TheNiche]

And here I thought people married because they are in love. A gay person can fall in love with a member of the opposite sex as easily as a straight person can fall in love with a member of their same sex. If the tables were turned (hypothetically) and they outlawed straight marriage and only gay couples could marry and get the rights that come with marriage... would you (a straight person) want straight marriage made legal again or would you just marry someone of the same sex?

Keep in mind (in my hypothetical situation) straight people would still be allowed to live together, have children, raise families... etc... nothing would change except they couldn't LEGALLY marry which means they couldn't get the rights that come with LEGAL marriage... only gay couples could do that. Something tells me the "straight" community would fight for equal rights to marry... as they should.

I thought that I made that perfectly clear. I do not like government-sanctioned marriage under any circumstances, whether straight-straight, straight-gay/lesbian, or gay/lesbian, gay/lesbian.

[TheNiche]

...is a flamethrower technically a gun?

You can own and use a flamethrower, although I'm not sure whether it can be commercially transacted.

They're really neat to be able to play around with, although if you've ever used one, you'd probably find it to be rather impractical for defensive purposes. If you're good with electronics, you can probably rig up a rural or exurban compound with effective remote-controlled defensive flamethrowers. Don't count on them being an effective weapon in the Heights, though.

[bachanon]

I thought that I made that perfectly clear. I do not like government-sanctioned marriage under any circumstances, whether straight-straight, straight-gay/lesbian, or gay/lesbian, gay/lesbian.

exactly the direction this issue should go.

so, niche, are you saying that legal documents, tax rules, insurance regulations, etc should not consider marriage as a requirement for any benefit or limitation? would there be no assumed shared benefits without a primary contract holder, head of household, etc decreeing it so? would a marriage license be nothing more than an agreement/commitment between two persons?

please explain.

[TheNiche]

exactly the direction this issue should go.

so, niche, are you saying that legal documents, tax rules, insurance regulations, etc should not consider marriage as a requirement for any benefit or limitation? would there be no assumed shared benefits without a primary contract holder, head of household, etc decreeing it so? would a marriage license be nothing more than an agreement/commitment between two persons?

please explain.

Household size and type should be considerations for tax rules and insurance policies, etc., however, these are aspects that can be objectively determined through means other than government-sanctioned marriage. Marriage should be strictly the realm of religious institutions, completely separate from government in any form.

[bachanon]

so, for those not so keen on connecting the dots:

this would allow for equal benefits for everyone regardless of marriage status, straight or gay. therefore, gay marriage would no longer be a necessity to have equal benefits. the issue would dissolve into merely a social issue rather than a legal/constitutional issue.

[TheNiche]

so, for those not so keen on connecting the dots:

this would allow for equal benefits for everyone regardless of marriage status, straight or gay. therefore, gay marriage would no longer be a necessity to have equal benefits. the issue would dissolve into merely a social issue rather than a legal/constitutional issue.

Precisely. I have always wondered why gays would want the right to marriage for any practical reason. Personally, I envy their exemption from it.

[Subdude]

Hopelessly off topic here.

[Gary]

Here, let me try...

I believe that your irrational fear is symptomatic of a paranoid mental disorder.

Better?

ahhh Red, safely behind your computer again? Your incapable of not being a prick, and I'm hoping to meet you in person some day.

I find it sad that you don't live up to your signature in any form or fashion.

Edit: Didn't want to be a Red Scare so I deleted a comment.

[RedScare]

ahhh Red, safely behind your computer again? Your incapable of not being a prick, and I'm hoping to meet you in person some day.

I find it sad that you don't live up to your signature in any form or fashion.

Edit: Didn't want to be a Red Scare so I deleted a comment.

[barracuda]

.... ok ok ok... I just think it's ridiculous to get all scared thinking someone is coming after you to take your guns away. I mean, seriously. It's like a 6 year old crying b/c someone wants to take their teddy bear away that they think protects them from the monster in the closet. Good lord I am a homo who doesn't own a gun and I am not afraid one bit.

I am not trying to be mean... just think being scared that much is kind of overreacting just a bit. Everything is going to be OK.

That's kind of what I was thinking. What the heck is everyone so afraid of? The NRA and the firearms industry own these people with this faulty idea that they need to be afraid and need to keep funding the gun industry.

[TheNiche]

That's kind of what I was thinking. What the heck is everyone so afraid of? The NRA and the firearms industry own these people with this faulty idea that they need to be afraid and need to keep funding the gun industry.

One of the magnificent things that the founders of our federal government did was recognize that they themselves, as its leaders, could not be trusted. If you aren't afraid of our government, then you are not deserving it.

[RedScare]

KPRC Radio MOJO Host Chris Baker will be a speaker! For more information, visit:

http://community2.myfoxhouston.com/_CONSTI...1537/82250.html

or

http://www.meetup.com/riders-of-texas/calendar/10103901/

A quick glance at the guest list and comment section reveals a grand total of 5 people who said 'YES', and 2 'MAYBE's. I did not look to see if anyone had voted twice, since Betty Brown's Voter ID law does not apply to gun rallies. Sounds like a big shindig.

[barracuda]

One of the magnificent things that the founders of our federal government did was recognize that they themselves, as its leaders, could not be trusted. If you aren't afraid of our government, then you are not deserving it.

I admittedly was afraid of the Bush administration and their overreaching of executive powers and disregard for the law. But I don't see how personal firearms would have helped in that situation. The democratic system and term limits have worked quite well in allowing us to change who's in power.

[Geoff8201]

If you want to call something a freedom rally, use it to celebrate the first amendment, not the 2nd. Celebrate the 2nd at the shooting range.

As far as the 2nd Amendment goes, Barack Obama, nor any single liberal will be able to remove it, nor do they actually want to.

Afterall, that's the real issue isn't it. The fear that the Democrat controlled government will take it away because Conservatives spin it as that for political gain.

You think the President has the power to remove a whole amendment without the consequence of extreme unpopularity, violations of the law in doing so, civilian violence and extreme backlash from his own party even?? God No.

I see this primarily as simply an issue for Conservatives who want to spin it as liberals trying to take something away from them. Just another political argument. On non political levels, and more understandable, is the threat of losing your last line of self defense, not to mention something that makes you feel good. I've shot numerous guns. The power of it is almost euphoric. Knowing that from a distance you can take a life, knowing that no one would dare mess with you, knowing that you have protection without waiting on anyone else to assist. It's a feeling like a warm blanket. It security and power at the same time. There's nothing wrong with that.

As a Democrat my view of the 2nd amendment is this: It was the number 2 thing our founding fathers put down, after freedom of speech, meaning it was pretty high up there on importance, and it still is, otherwise it wouldn't be such an issue. Basically, I support the 2nd amendment, but I don't support the part that says it's every citizen's right. It's every RESPONSIBLE citizen's right, only. Afterall do any of us want to die from being shot because of bickering or because someone wants our shoes when such a thing could so easily have been avoided?

It's all about gun control. But conservatives generally don't like to be controlled. Even if the control allows law abiding citizens to have their arms, and keeps the arms out of those that would use it to rob a bank, get revenge on an enemy, massacre their class because they are not socially accepted.... In times of the Revolutionary War every American citizen needed this form of self defense, and our founding fathers put that necessity down as a right. In writing. The 2nd amendment is undergoing what all present-day applicable amendments are, and that's evolution for the times.

[TheNiche]

I admittedly was afraid of the Bush administration and their overreaching of executive powers and disregard for the law. But I don't see how personal firearms would have helped in that situation. The democratic system and term limits have worked quite well in allowing us to change who's in power.

You're right; that's not an applicable situation. The conditions which would justify a viable popular revolt would more likely be decades or even centuries in the making, the aggregate effect of the slow erosion of civil liberties (which very well could overlap the most recent administrations) coupled with a tyrannical executive. Bush gets lampooned sometimes as a tyrant, but I would submit to you that his compliance with term limits is a clear indication otherwise; by my estimation, he did some foolish things which expanded executive powers and would make a true tyrant's job easier. Think about a character more like Aaron Burr, someone who has designs on power for its own sake, close alliances within the military, and an unwillingness to step down.

Anything that could be done which might act to stall the erosion of civil liberties or that might act as a deterrent to tyrants is in the long-term interests of the country. And even in the short-term, we reap the economic benefits of a government that is perceived as having long-term stability.

[TheNiche]

If you want to call something a freedom rally, use it to celebrate the first amendment, not the 2nd. Celebrate the 2nd at the shooting range.

As far as the 2nd Amendment goes, Barack Obama, nor any single liberal will be able to remove it, nor do they actually want to.

Afterall, that's the real issue isn't it. The fear that the Democrat controlled government will take it away because Conservatives spin it as that for political gain.

You think the President has the power to remove a whole amendment without the consequence of extreme unpopularity, violations of the law in doing so, civilian violence and extreme backlash from his own party even?? God No.

I see this primarily as simply an issue for Conservatives who want to spin it as liberals trying to take something away from them. Just another political argument. On non political levels, and more understandable, is the threat of losing your last line of self defense, not to mention something that makes you feel good. I've shot numerous guns. The power of it is almost euphoric. Knowing that from a distance you can take a life, knowing that no one would dare mess with you, knowing that you have protection without waiting on anyone else to assist. It's a feeling like a warm blanket. It security and power at the same time. There's nothing wrong with that.

As a Democrat my view of the 2nd amendment is this: It was the number 2 thing our founding fathers put down, after freedom of speech, meaning it was pretty high up there on importance, and it still is, otherwise it wouldn't be such an issue. Basically, I support the 2nd amendment, but I don't support the part that says it's every citizen's right. It's every RESPONSIBLE citizen's right, only. Afterall do any of us want to die from being shot because of bickering or because someone wants our shoes when such a thing could so easily have been avoided?

It's all about gun control. But conservatives generally don't like to be controlled. Even if the control allows law abiding citizens to have their arms, and keeps the arms out of those that would use it to rob a bank, get revenge on an enemy, massacre their class because they are not socially accepted.... In times of the Revolutionary War every American citizen needed this form of self defense, and our founding fathers put that necessity down as a right. In writing. The 2nd amendment is undergoing what all present-day applicable amendments are, and that's evolution for the times.

You frame this as being about self-defense, and so does the NRA--they throw sport into the mix, too. These have nothing to do with why the Second Amendment is in the constitution. It's just one more check on the powers of government. These guys had just finished fighting a revolutionary war not very long ago, and the possibility of another one to thwart a failed state was very much at the top of mind. It is unfortunate that this isn't PC to talk about and that all of the interest groups have to dance around it to avoid being labeled extremist.

I do agree with you that the Republicans are spinning this to their own advantage, as well they should; the Executive Branch wants to bring back the Assault Weapons Ban, which--whether someone likes it in principle or not--is just poorly-written law which is extremely difficult to enforce.

[west20th]

You're right; that's not an applicable situation. The conditions which would justify a viable popular revolt would more likely be decades or even centuries in the making, the aggregate effect of the slow erosion of civil liberties (which very well could overlap the most recent administrations) coupled with a tyrannical executive. Bush gets lampooned sometimes as a tyrant, but I would submit to you that his compliance with term limits is a clear indication otherwise; by my estimation, he did some foolish things which expanded executive powers and would make a true tyrant's job easier. Think about a character more like Aaron Burr, someone who has designs on power for its own sake, close alliances within the military, and an unwillingness to step down.

Anything that could be done which might act to stall the erosion of civil liberties or that might act as a deterrent to tyrants is in the long-term interests of the country. And even in the short-term, we reap the economic benefits of a government that is perceived as having long-term stability.

Good Lord, why would anyone want that job longer than necessary. I've always seen that as the toughest/worst job in the world, however being ex-President is probably the sweetest gig one could have.

[RedScare]

You frame this as being about self-defense, and so does the NRA--they throw sport into the mix, too. These have nothing to do with why the Second Amendment is in the constitution. It's just one more check on the powers of government. These guys had just finished fighting a revolutionary war not very long ago, and the possibility of another one to thwart a failed state was very much at the top of mind. It is unfortunate that this isn't PC to talk about and that all of the interest groups have to dance around it to avoid being labeled extremist.

I do agree with you that the Republicans are spinning this to their own advantage, as well they should; the Executive Branch wants to bring back the Assault Weapons Ban, which--whether someone likes it in principle or not--is just poorly-written law which is extremely difficult to enforce.

Your description that it is not PC to talk about is probably less about PC and more about the folly of citizens in armed revolt against the US government, and even more about the fact that an overwhelming number of citizens would prefer not to see that happen. The realities of what you hint at are that the US government could crush an internal revolt, if it consisted of only small arms fire. The weapons needed to even have a chance against the government are already illegal. Framing the 2nd Amendment in 'revolt against the government' terms is merely fantasy for the gun nuts. This is not to suggest that guns should be outlawed. It is merely to say that having them in case we need to revolt is not talked about because it would be ineffective. Besides, if we needed weapons, the insurgents would simply bootleg them in the way we do every other product that we want which the government says no. People do not generally follow the government's rules during a revolt.

Every successful internal change of government is largely accomplished by means other than gunfire. As we have a system in place for the peaceful replacement of government officials with whom we disagree, gunfire is not necessary. People often forget that the current makeup of the government came about because the majority of the population disapproved of the former regime. They did not take over. We voted them in. The fact that rabid gun owners do not approve of these current officials is more indicative of the gun owners' status as a minority viewpoint than of some overtaking of the government by their opponents. When the views of the gun owners more closely allign with the majority of the voting population, officials of whom they approve will begin getting elected again.

[TheNiche]

Your description that it is not PC to talk about is probably less about PC and more about the folly of citizens in armed revolt against the US government, and even more about the fact that an overwhelming number of citizens would prefer not to see that happen.

But that feeds back into what I was talking about. It's never politically correct to even discuss the possibility of armed revolt until it actually becomes necessary...and even then, there is typically quite a bit of resistance from the extreme doves. Throughout the history of civilizations, peoples have indicated a very short attention span when it comes to political history. They look at their current and recent leaders and worry about issues in the context of who is in charge, not who could be many years into the future. In fact, that's the problem with tyranny. Most tyrants are actually quite benevolent and in fact fairly intelligent. It is their successors who are the wild cards, apt to throw society on end.

The realities of what you hint at are that the US government could crush an internal revolt, if it consisted of only small arms fire. The weapons needed to even have a chance against the government are already illegal. Framing the 2nd Amendment in 'revolt against the government' terms is merely fantasy for the gun nuts. This is not to suggest that guns should be outlawed. It is merely to say that having them in case we need to revolt is not talked about because it would be ineffective. Besides, if we needed weapons, the insurgents would simply bootleg them in the way we do every other product that we want which the government says no. People do not generally follow the government's rules during a revolt.

It depends on the scale of the revolt. Look at how much difficulty we've had in Iraq, a country approximately the size of Texas and with only a slightly larger population. The sophisticated heavy weaponry and command infrastructure was easy to dismantle; it was the house-to-house fighting with small arms and IEDs that dragged on and wore us down. And as for fully-automatic weapons, well, it's not that difficult to convert a semi-automatic firearm into full auto. And as you pointed out, people do not generally follow the government's rules during a revolt. ...but you can't make effective weapons out of mediocre weapons if you don't even have access even to those. The more that the 2nd Amendment is eroded, however, the more that your criticism has a basis in reality.

Every successful internal change of government is largely accomplished by means other than gunfire. As we have a system in place for the peaceful replacement of government officials with whom we disagree, gunfire is not necessary. People often forget that the current makeup of the government came about because the majority of the population disapproved of the former regime. They did not take over. We voted them in. The fact that rabid gun owners do not approve of these current officials is more indicative of the gun owners' status as a minority viewpoint than of some overtaking of the government by their opponents. When the views of the gun owners more closely allign with the majority of the voting population, officials of whom they approve will begin getting elected again.

The American Revolution would seem to have indicated otherwise. Clearly, there is more to a successful internal change of government than gunfire or the threat of gunfire; the Constitution is itself a nearly-miraculous system of checks and balances to deter the need for armed revolt, the framers of which condoned and participated in it and in fact recommended it under certain circumstances.

And as I've already stated, I'm not suggesting armed revolt against the current administration, merely the need to stand vigilant against a potential tyrant. By the time that such an individual is recognized as being worthy of such action, the system that you cherish will already have been so wounded as to make the action truly impossible.

The Second Amendment is not only a last-resort check on government, but it is a deterrent to anyone who would dare to instigate tyranny.

[RedScare]

The more that the 2nd Amendment is eroded, however, the more that your criticism has a basis in reality.

Except that the 2nd Amendment is far from being eroded. It is being expanded. There are an estimated 215 million guns in the US, more than at any time in our history. Daily, laws are proposed that make it easier to carry weapons on the street, in vehicles and elsewhere, and to use them with impunity. The fear that our guns are being taken away is pure fiction, as we obtaining more by the day. The argument that gun rights are being eroded, whether in context of current events, or in historical context, is pure fiction.

Some common sense would appear to be in order, but that does not appear to be the hallmark of gun proponents or their political action committees. Rallies to 'protect' a right that is being expanded as opposed to eroded, are what garner the 'nutjob' tags for gun supporters.

[TheNiche]

Except that the 2nd Amendment is far from being eroded. It is being expanded. There are an estimated 215 million guns in the US, more than at any time in our history. Daily, laws are proposed that make it easier to carry weapons on the street, in vehicles and elsewhere, and to use them with impunity. The fear that our guns are being taken away is pure fiction, as we obtaining more by the day. The argument that gun rights are being eroded, whether in context of current events, or in historical context, is pure fiction.

Some common sense would appear to be in order, but that does not appear to be the hallmark of gun proponents or their political action committees. Rallies to 'protect' a right that is being expanded as opposed to eroded, are what garner the 'nutjob' tags for gun supporters.

As I have tried to explain, there is a difference between what is and what could be. We must stand vigilant against the present or future erosion of Second Amendment rights, regardless of present conditions.

I could, of course, go into a an exhaustive debate about what is and has been going on at the federal, state, and local levels since the framing of the Constitution--it would be a mixed bag, no doubt--but it would not in and of itself be especially pertinent to the point that I have raised.

[RedScare]

As I have tried to explain, there is a difference between what is and what could be. We must stand vigilant against the present or future erosion of Second Amendment rights, regardless of present conditions.

OK, well there will be a few people standing vigilant on Saturday about what could be. Feel free to join them, as the 1st Amendment gives you that right. I'll be dealing with a little more current and real problems.

[TheNiche]

OK, well there will be a few people standing vigilant on Saturday about what could be. Feel free to join them, as the 1st Amendment gives you that right. I'll be dealing with a little more current and real problems.

As I had also previously explained, the long-term stability afforded by our system of government and by the assurance of these rights has the effect of improving our short-term economic conditions relative to less stable countries. Thus, the maintenance of our civil liberties is always of "current and real" concern.

I stated earlier in this thread that I support the cause, albeit for different reasons, but that I don't like these people, and that I would be abstaining from the event. You could've read it earlier, but instead I've had to repeat myself. Seems to be a recurring trend.

[RedScare]

Nope, I saw it earlier, but since your concerns seemed so great, I thought you might want to reassess. Not every freedom fighter is a likeable person. Sometimes, you have to swallow your pride for the good of the republic. I'd do so myself, except I'll be mowing my yard.