FREEDOM RALLY Saturday, April 18th 2009!

[Disastro]

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/

[Heights2Bastrop]

Is the Second Amendment the one about false idols, or taking god

[TheNiche]

I support the cause but I also do not like these people. I will not be in attendance.

[Fringe]

BYOG?

[CoolBuddy06]

Freedom rally? No thanks. I was born free.

[Gary]

Freedom rally? No thanks. I was born free.

So was I, but as a hand gun liscense holder, I'm scared to death what the current administration might do to my second ammendment rights. Maybe I'm jumping the gun (no pun intended), but I'm really concerned.

Note: please ignore my post if you feel the need to get in a heated debate. I'd like to discuss the second ammendment, not have sarcastic, and snide responses. Thank you.

[Montrose1100]

I don't have a hand gun, but I do have a few hunting rifles. Is the 2nd Amendment being challanged?

[HtownWxBoy]

So was I, but as a hand gun liscense holder, I'm scared to death what the current administration might do to my second amendment rights. Maybe I'm jumping the gun (no pun intended), but I'm really concerned.

Oh lord, freaking drama queen! (and that's coming from a homo!)

I am all for having guns for self defense to protect yourself and your family and whatnot, but to have this called a "Freedom Rally" just makes these people look stupid. They get all up in arms when they think the government might take away their rights... when at the same time most of them probably have no problem with Gay people in this Nation not even having equal rights to begin with.

"Oh No... big bad Obama is going to take away my rights!!!" ..... Try not having equal rights in the first place, then come talk to me. Stop being such a bunch of cry babies.

Is the Second Amendment the one about false idols, or taking god

[TheNiche]

They get all up in arms when they think the government might take away their rights... when at the same time most of them probably have no problem with Gay people in this Nation not even having equal rights to begin with.

So...you've reduced this to an issue over people rather than ideas...and you are comparing very different issues of defining which rights are rights with issues of defining which populations receive or do not receive rights...even though I would point out that gays and lesbians are obviously just as equally free to marry people of the opposite sex as are straights. Also...why did you capitalize the words "Gay" and "Nation"? Those aren't pronouns.

[Fringe]

Do it for Jesus!

[Native Son]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

No. 07-290. Argued March 18, 2008--Decided June 26, 2008

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...friend=usatoday

follow the link and read the decision, then tell me why you still need to have a rally

[west20th]

So...you've reduced this to an issue over people rather than ideas...and you are comparing very different issues of defining which rights are rights with issues of defining which populations receive or do not receive rights...even though I would point out that gays and lesbians are obviously just as equally free to marry people of the opposite sex as are straights. Also...why did you capitalize the words "Gay" and "Nation"? Those aren't pronouns.

Below is from the Iowa supreme court decision on marriage. This explains how ridiculous that argument is better than I ever could.

http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Co...403/07-1499.pdf

It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and

lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry,

it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of

marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex

is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person

of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian

person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a

person of the opposite sex is no right at all.

Sorry about being off topic but I couldn't let that old argument be trotted out w/o answer.

[TheNiche]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

No. 07-290. Argued March 18, 2008--Decided June 26, 2008

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...friend=usatoday

follow the link and read the decision, then tell me why you still need to have a rally

**Disclaimer: Like I said earlier, I don't like the folks that will attend the rally, but I do support the cause.**

This case prevents the outright ban on an entire class of firearms. But an example of a contentious political issues not affected by this decision would be 1) reinstating a ban on specified "assault weapons", 2) registration of the owners of firearms by law enforcement agencies at all levels of government, 3) restrictions on the commercial sale of firearms that are so onerous as to effectively ban the possession of certain classes of firearms except in a very narrow set of circumstances.

I think that the assault weapons issue is probably the most prominent one right now, and there is good reason for people to be pissed off. If anyone here is at all familiar with the functionality of the assault weapons ban that had formerly been in effect, it named some magazine-fed models of semiautomatic firearms specifically (which were functionally identical to other models which were unnamed) and banned the sale of them if they met two or more of the criteria below:

For rifles:

* Folding or telescoping stock

* Pistol grip

* Bayonet mount

* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one

* Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

For pistols:

* Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip

* Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor

* Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold

* Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more

* A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm

For shotguns:

* Folding or telescoping stock

* Pistol grip

* Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds

* Detachable magazine

Most of the folks that I've ever argued this with seemed to believe that this was a ban on the possession of scary fully-automatic weapons. Actually, that already exists, more or less. It was a ban on the sale of semi-automatic weapons that looked like fully automatic weapons.

Will someone tell me when was the last time that they heard of a crime being committed with a firearm with a mounted bayonet using the bayonet as the weapon? I can think of at least one case where someone I know was out hunting feral hogs with his semi-automatic AK-47, where he ran out of ammo, the wounded hog charged him, and he had to stick it with the bayonet.

How about a grenade launcher? Grenades are illegal already, and the only things that an M203 37mm grenade launcher mounted to the bottom of an AR-15 would be good for would be signaling that someone is in distress by launching flares or a smoke grenade. That's a legitimate purpose.

And what the bill actually did was it created two classes of the same kinds of firearms. Based upon whether a particular weapon's lower receiver (a single part of the gun, which by itself is not dangerous) was a pre-ban or post-ban, the owner was allowed or not allowed under federal law to accessorize the firearm with such things as pistol grips and grenade launchers. But those components still fit on the gun whether they were supposed to be there or not, and unless a federal agent queried a database using a receiver's stamped serial number, there was no indication of whether the owner was breaking the law or not. The bill was impossible to enforce effectively beyond the point of sale and resulted in extremely few prosecutions. It only made life more complicated for people who actually have respect for the law.

[TheNiche]

Below is from the Iowa supreme court decision on marriage. This explains how ridiculous that argument is better than I ever could.

http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Co...403/07-1499.pdf

It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and

lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry,

it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of

marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex

is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person

of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian

person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a

person of the opposite sex is no right at all.

Sorry about being off topic but I couldn't let that old argument be trotted out w/o answer.

But htownwxboy was arguing that gays and lesbians had unequal rights, and he is wrong. By the letter of the law and in the way that it is enforced, there is not inequality. The question is not whether or not a law or institution should be valued equally by all constituencies of the citizenry. It is a question over the very existence of a right such as would justify the establishment of a new law, upheld just the same as the preexisting one.

Clearly there are many kinds of legislation that are unequally valued by different populations of the citizenry but that are created by the whole body of the United States legislature according to rules that are applied uniformly, and clearly these sorts of legislation are being enforced equally, to the letter of the law. A resident of Manhattan doesn't get much use from government spending in rural Idaho, or vice versa. That doesn't mean that there's an injustice if and when rural Idaho receives a disproportionate amount of federal spending per capita.

For the record, though, I am not in favor of the government-sanctioned union of gays or lesbians. I am also not in favor of the government-sanctioned union of straight men and women. So you see, I don't like the way that marriage is handled, either. But I'm not complaining that it represents unequal treatment of people who don't like the government-sanctioned institution of marriage.

[HtownWxBoy]

So...you've reduced this to an issue over people rather than ideas...and you are comparing very different issues of defining which rights are rights with issues of defining which populations receive or do not receive rights...even though I would point out that gays and lesbians are obviously just as equally free to marry people of the opposite sex as are straights. Also...why did you capitalize the words "Gay" and "Nation"? Those aren't pronouns.

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.

[sarahiki]

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.

The tide is turning!

This is a freedom I would rally for. Love, not guns, baby.

[HtownWxBoy]

The tide is turning!

This is a freedom I would rally for. Love, not guns, baby.

It's turning fast... all of a sudden Iowa and Vermont... other states are considering following... you can't stop freedom baby!

And as for guns since that's what this topic was about... like I said I am for the second amendment when it comes to people being able to defend themselves and their families and their property and whatnot... it just seems like something has to be done... how can we allow people the right to defend themselves and at the same time do something about these gun rampages.

[Gary]

it just seems like something has to be done... how can we allow people the right to defend themselves and at the same time do something about these gun rampages.

We could take away their guns, and give em night sticks.

Oh lord, freaking drama queen! (and that's coming from a homo!)

I am all for having guns for self defense to protect yourself and your family and whatnot, but to have this called a "Freedom Rally" just makes these people look stupid. They get all up in arms when they think the government might take away their rights... when at the same time most of them probably have no problem with Gay people in this Nation not even having equal rights to begin with.

"Oh No... big bad Obama is going to take away my rights!!!" ..... Try not having equal rights in the first place, then come talk to me. Stop being such a bunch of cry babies.

Is that really neccessary? If you will re-read my post, you'll notice that I said "maybe I'm jumping the gun, but am still scared". I also asked for a civil response, but that's to much to ask on this forum.

[HtownWxBoy]

We could take away their guns, and give em night sticks.

Is that really neccessary? If you will re-read my post, you'll notice that I said "maybe I'm jumping the gun, but am still scared". I also asked for a civil response, but that's to much to ask on this forum.

I sowwy

[RedScare]

Is that really neccessary? If you will re-read my post, you'll notice that I said "maybe I'm jumping the gun, but am still scared". I also asked for a civil response, but that's to much to ask on this forum.

Here, let me try...

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

Better?

[HtownWxBoy]

Here, let me try...

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

Better?

.... 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.

[Native Son]

my point was simply this:

after 8 years of conservative Republican majority rule and this is what you have

abortion is still legal

the boarders are as porous as ever

the economy is in tatters

the deficit is at record highs

and we have two ugly wars

but you finally got an affirmative ruling from the US Supreme Court stating that the 2nd Amendment does mean individuals have the right to own guns...

the rally should be a celebration

you know, kegs and shooting guns in the air...a real wing ding

[HtownWxBoy]

my point was simply this:

after 8 years of conservative Republican majority rule and this is what you have

abortion is still legal

the boarders are as porous as ever

the economy is in tatters

the deficit is at record highs

and we have two ugly wars

but you finally got an affirmative ruling from the US Supreme Court stating that the 2nd Amendment does mean individuals have the right to own guns...

the rally should be a celebration

you know, kegs and shooting guns in the air...a real wing ding

The Supreme Court also ruled that abortions are legal... you know, Roe vs. Wade... so of course "abortions are still legal".

[20thStDad]

Hey, so they're not taking away my one little gun right now, a .22 rifle, but if they ever did, can I at least get them to buy it from me? Is there any history on a government banning previously ok stuff where they buy it back, or is it just confiscate and suck up the losses? I would not freak out if I was told I couldn't have a gun, but I'd be pissed at the loss of asset value. Then I'd get a sword. Maybe a spear...is a flamethrower technically a gun?

[RedScare]

.... 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.

You know, HWB, I can't help but notice how you have taken a very He-man, patriotic Texan and American thread like this and gayed it up something fierce. No self respecting gun toter would dare post here now, what with all the gayness and whatnot. I mean, even 20thStDad is talking about flamethrowers now!

I think you should apologize.

[BryanS]

To all those who wish to arm themselves to the teeth, in the name of the 2nd Amendment and to protect themselves from the evil communist, Obama administration: You will never win!

No amount of fire power you and your buddies can amass can take down the United States Government. When this shows up on your doorstep:

It's over. So as to protect the rest of our freedom, from the lunatics and the groups they form.

[20thStDad]

To all those who wish to arm themselves to the teeth, in the name of the 2nd Amendment and to protect themselves from the evil communist, Obama administration: You will never win!

No amount of fire power you and your buddies can amass can take down the United States Government. When this shows up on your doorstep:

It's over. So as to protect the rest of our freedom, from the lunatics and the groups they form.

You must not have seen Red Dawn...the people always have a chance. WOLVERINES!!!!

That movie scared the crap out of me when I was a kid by the way.

[UrbaNerd]

I support the cause but I also do not like these people. I will not be in attendance.

Agreed. This along with the crazy lady who wants Asians to change their names is making the "Republicans" look like idiots atm.

[RedScare]

You must not have seen Red Dawn...the people always have a chance. WOLVERINES!!!!

That movie scared the crap out of me when I was a kid by the way.

Didn't they pretty much kill all the wolverines? I thought only one guy and a chick escaped.

Hardly an encouraging movie.

[20thStDad]

Didn't they pretty much kill all the wolverines? I thought only one guy and a chick escaped.

Hardly an encouraging movie.

You could be right. I think it was 22 years ago when I watched it. I thought it ended sort of cliff-hanger with a few still planning to make trouble for the soviets. I may have made that part up in my mind over the years.

Maybe a better example - Tremors. That one worm who busted up in the armory that guy (and Reba McIntyre) had was toast. I mean, it took the elephant gun to kill it, but still. Kevin Bacon is weird.