Sean Penn armed w/ a shottie!

Nice picture on the Drudge Report showing Sean Penn trudging through the waters in NO carrying a shotgun, byline says his fans are shocked. Maybe he confiscated it from somebody's home. Two bit left wing celebrities never fail to amaze me.

looks like he may have another long gun under wraps in the other hand, so yeah, maybe he just found them, and didn't want them in the wrong hands. Though I wonder whose hands he thinks are the wrong ones.

http://drudgereport.com/penn.jpg
HA!

Sean Penn's no stranger to guns, somebody stole a Glock and a .38 from his car relatively recently.

Now, whether or not he supports our right to own one is a different story....

Actually that's nice to see. A liberal facing reality.

Seen plenty of folks who only had problems with other people's guns.

Just wish they would quit trying to take them away...

Seen plenty of folks who only had problems with other people's guns.

These people piss me off more than anyone else. If someone wants to be anti-guns that is fine, I will disagree with you but you are welcome to have your point of view. But damn those who feel they have the right or need to own guns but others don't. :cuss: :fire: :banghead:

Oh ya, way to go Mr. Penn. I hope some of his co-workers/friends see this image and open up their minds a little.

Cut him some slack. He can't differentiate fantasy from reality. He thinks he's on a movie set. :p

If that guy wants to keep jumping from hot spot to spot in the world he should either (A) take a job with Fox News or (B) join the State Department. Its ridiculous some washed up actor is going around the world making a fool of himself and thinking he represents the US. I really hope that is his own 12 gauge and he isn't trying to do any confiscation/collecting from private citizens.

www.drudgereport.com There you will see a photo of Sean Penn carrying a shotgun during the hurricane !! He's really one of us.

from drudge report

http://www.public.iastate.edu/~charby/penn.jpg

Sean Penn stuns fans as he is pictured in NY POST roaming the streets of hurricane hit New Orleans -- armed with a shotgun!...

Nothing terribly surprising there. He was outed a year or so ago when he reported a couple of handguns were in his car when it was stolen.

Multiple posts merged.

LawDog

darnit lawdog..... saw you had made a post here and was tasting one of your inimitible stories bout some critter carrying who really was a living case of operator error.

phawgh "threads merged". arrrk

rms/pa

It seems that there are quite a few people here who combine "liberal" with "gun-hating". There are a great many liberal gun nuts out there, and they would likely take exception to comments like these. Sean Penn may be an idiot, and he may be liberal, but please do not lump all liberals into his idiocy. Been to Vermont? That's the unofficial capital of liberal gun owners. Are they all idiots? Are they "facing reality" sufficiently to satisfy all of the forum members here?
Sorry to get off topic, but remarks like that should be very carefully selected.
When Penn's car was robbed of its contents and he reported handguns stolen, I laughed pretty hard, shook my head, and forever since have completely dismissed everything he says and does.

Wow. Life imitates art, evidently.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=28747

It seems that there are quite a few people here who combine "liberal" with "gun-hating". There are a great many liberal gun nuts out there, and they would likely take exception to comments like these.

+5 Underrated

Thank you. And yes, we *do* get irritated, I come here for the less-depressing side of the news and the "You must be an idiot to..." stuff gets tiresome quickly.

Life's a balancing act.

outlawing guns is a liberal idea
therefore people who want them outlawed are liberals

What is that pump-gun anyway? 870?

outlawing guns is a liberal idea
therefore people who want them outlawed are liberals

of course i lump them all into the "commie" category

great pic of mr penn
that should make the front page of the NY times

didnt mean to post twice
i wrote my thing pressed submit, then hit bak to change it

That's right, nobody in NO is allowed to have guns... unless you're a celebrity or member of the ruling elite of course...

Sean Penn's no stranger to guns, somebody stole a Glock and a .38 from his car relatively recently.

If that was the incident in Berkeley, ********** - I believe his car was stolen and he had a couple of guns in it. I recall the article mentioned he had a CCW in Kalif.

--------quote--------------
It seems that there are quite a few people here who combine "liberal" with "gun-hating". There are a great many liberal gun nuts out there, and they would likely take exception to comments like these.
---------------------------

Well, that's the risk you take when you buy into an ideology.

By the same token, there may be some conservative Christians out there who are pro-choice; they probably get irritated when they keep hearing about the "anti-abortion religious right."

That doesn't change the fact that certain ideologies are overwhelmingly associated with certain policy positions. The association of left/liberals and gun control is one such instance.

I've got a dog that will eat broccoli and oranges. That doesn't mean dogs are vegetarians.

Isn't Penn a convicted felon?

Yeah, good old Sean has a CCW issued in Marin county in the bay area. According to the S.F. Chronicle article, he was given an exemption from the CA Dept of Justice, since he had a criminal conviction for beating up his wife, to get the CCW. His 1980's Monte Carlo was broken into while he was having lunch in Berkely. A revolver and a Glock were stolen.
Funny, I haven't seen Sean out there campaigning for 2nd amendment rights. Hmmmm, wonder why?

outlawing guns is a liberal idea That is such an obviously oxymoronic statement, that I can't believe you made it. The 2nd amendment is a liberty.

Gun-grabbers may call themselves liberals, but if they are trying to curtail my constitutional liberties, then they are lying.

Please also note that Iraqis shooting at our soldiers and Marines call themselves "freedom fighters." The continued used of liberal as an epithet makes just as much sense as saying all freedom lovers are terrorists.

As for Penn, he is definite elitist when it comes to firearms. The fact that he can have a CCW with his violent past when I, as a veteren cannot have a CCW just kills me.

The fact that he can have a CCW with his violent past when I, as a veteren cannot have a CCW just kills me.

Penn is a veteran, he was in "Casualties of War" which showed him starring in the Vietnam War and somehow he also starred in the 2nd World War at Guadalcanal , as shown in "The Thin Red Line". He must have been pretty old in Vietnam. I'm sure he got his military training in "Taps". He might have starred in other wars too...I'm not sure.
That's the reason he got a CCW and you didn't. ;)

Penn is a veteran, he was in "Casualties of War" which showed him starring in the Vietnam War and somehow he also starred in the 2nd World War at Guadalcanal , as shown in "The Thin Red Line". He must have been pretty old in Vietnam. I'm sure he got his military training in "Taps". He might have starred in other wars too...I'm not sure.
That's the reason he got a CCW and you didn't.
_______________________________________
Hey Rick, thanks for explaining that to me! :rolleyes: I only have 4 years in the Army and no combat experience, so compared to Sean's war film experience I'm just a wannabe. Plus I'm nowhere as rich as he is, so I just don't deserve my CCW. And to top it all off, I'm not in New Orleans defending the rights of gun owners and incompetent boaters everywhere! so I really shouldn't even think of ever getting a CCW.

By the same token, there may be some conservative Christians out there who are pro-choice;

Being a conservative Christian rules out being pro-choice.

I am not sure but isn't Penn the one who some years back fired a few rounds at a helicopter at he and Madonna's wedding.

It's not enough to be a veteran, I'm one of those (disabled, Vietnam). I couldn't get a CCW when I lived in Kalif either. Let's face it, veterans are a dime a dozen. Apparently, you have to STAR in a war or two. Being a STAR in two wars is probably better.

I'm fully supportive of his right to keep and bear despite his past transgressions.

Being a conservative Christian rules out being pro-choice

thank u
amen

Couldn't be Sean Penn--must be a case of mistaken identity. Why, if the real Sean Penn ever touched a gun, he'd burst into flame! :)

He is forever typecast in my mind as "Spicolli".

He is forever typecast in my mind as "Spicolli".

lmao.

I wonder if he was surfing down in lousiana.

No need to get excited fellas. He's just waiting for Clinton and Kerry to show up so they can go duck hunting.

Well did Sean at least remember to plug up the hole in the shotgun before venturing out? Damn! Zero for two. :D

Third time's the charm.

He might have starred in other wars too...I'm not sure. Thanks for clearing that up Rick. :) I feel much better now.

No need to get excited fellas. He's just waiting for Clinton and Kerry to show up so they can go duck hunting. You win at the internets :D I spit peas from laughing.

I actually liked FastTimes at Ridgemount High and Taps, but the only good part of The Thin Red Line was Woody Harrelson berating himself as a n00b, right before he blows his ass off.

Let's see here...Mr. Penn has guns but doesn't want others to have guns. Therefore he's an elitist. We have guns but we imply that Mr. Penn shouldn't because he's an elitist. :confused: :rolleyes:

I'm fully supportive of his right to keep and bear despite his past transgressions.

Bingo!

<jumping up and down>

We have a winner! Everybody should be able to carry a gun anywhere.

Does anybody know if he owns property in NO?? There's probably a good reason why he's there,,with a shotgun.

John G asked if that shottie was an 870?

Kinda hard to be sure by the photo quality, but I make it to be an Ithaca or Mossberg... maybe in 20 gauge or .410, based on the skinny barrel. The receiver doesn't look right for a Rem 870.

Maybe he can't handle a 12 gauge's recoil... due to all the prior ** combat injuries ** he sustained while making those war movies...

Who is Sean Penn? My hero's are guys like RICK RENO!! The guys in my town's KIA/POW Memorial!! The WALL in Washington!!.... Those are my hero's!! THATS WHY I ENLISTED!!!... REAL ROLE MODELS!!!

I'll ask again "Who is Sean Penn?" :confused:

This guy is a scum bucket FELON with a domestic violence history ( he REALLY DID whack the snot out of a woman, among others weaker than he) that according to Ca. AND Federal law absolutely precludes him from having guns no less a CCW in a Ca. county infamous for not giving CCWs! This makes me so mad I WANT the head of those LIBERAL, left wing hypocrits that rewrote the 'law' for the classes that controls the masses! Really I would off such scum(who circumvented a draconian law) , if It wouldn't put a dent in my life style! AND I am a Christian, who wouldn't lose a nights sleep over it :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

Go Sean, go! Glad to see him openly practicing civil disobedience to an unconstitutional mandate. He is against the War in Iraq and the Bush administration for its "deconstruction of civil liberties" and its "simplistic and inflammatory view of good and evil." I have never heard him state he is anti-gun.

According to the S.F. Chronicle article, he was given an exemption from the CA Dept of Justice, since he had a criminal conviction for beating up his wife, to get the CCW.

If he actually has a domestic violence conviction he is a prohibited person under federal law. I don't think he can possess a firearm at all. I don't think CA DOJ can exempt him from Lautenberg....

Jeff

Kablaah!

It seems that there are quite a few people here who combine "liberal" with "gun-hating". There are a great many liberal gun nuts out there, and they would likely take exception to comments like these. The far left liberals in any modern society have always been "gun-hating" so long as the guns they hate are in the hands of the opposition. They have always loved guns when in their own hands. While they might not show this love outright, they live it at the least vicariously through the guns in the hands of their armed goon squads. As a case in point, there was no more liberal political and social group than were the Nazis of WWII. Of course they attempted to confiscate guns to make society safer. All they were doing was making it easier to control the ghettos so they could round up and kill millions of people. Likewise there is no more liberal a modern day person than someone like Rosie O’Donnell who reportedly has armed goons (whoops guards) who accompany her everywhere. It is not that liberal are anti-gun per se, they are, or they who are on the left of center liberally are quite the control freak type of person. Guns or other arms in the hands of others aggravate them, and get their panties in a wad. This is seen time and time again when the likes of people like Howard Stern are reported to have concealed carry permits. Of course a recent political example would be Kerry when he ran for president. Read the interviews of him by outdoor writers. Read his description of how to hunt a deer by crawling on your belly. look at pictures of him carrying firearms with his finger on the trigger, while he looks at the camera with a goofy smile yet narry an apparent concern for where the gun is pointed. Guns are great for them when they suit their needs but; they seem to believe that guns are not great for others, is the impression I get from them. That kind of it is ok for me but not for you is a very liberal way of thinking.

This does not only go for guns, it goes for other things too. Take for example animal rights. According to PETA we should treat all animals with respect, we should not put unwanted pets to sleep, we should not use products that were the result of animal experimentation. Yet, the head of PETA is reported to take medication that was discovered only through years of animal experimentation (I believe for diabetes) and, it has been reported that PETA or its affiliates put animals to sleep in shelters they run when the shelters cannot adopt them out. Also look to The Humane Society of the US. This organization went so far as to take a name (at least part of a name) that is affiliated with animal adoption centers/shelters throughout the United States. "Humane Society" being the part to which I refer. Yet this same organization is pretty much anti pet keeping. Read their own literature; they are in no way like a local "Humane Society" from what I can tell.

Members of ALF and ELF to ultra extremist liberal groups reportedly have spray painted people who wear furs (while the person is wearing the fur, so to ruin it). Yet they wear leather shoes and belts and carry leather purses. I have witnessed this personally and as the goon who did the spraying ran off she shouted she was from ALF. It has also been suspected that some of the goons who are suspected members of ELF who were suspects in the torching of a car/SUV dealership arrived at one of these dealerships in an SUV and not on horseback as you might expect (sorry I cannot give further details).

A truly conservative outlook would on the other hand, preclude such action on the part of a conservative. An ultra conservative would allow just about anyone to keep and bear arms because if nothing else, the true conservative is conserving the Constitution and Bill Of Rights and a right that is as old as the first weapon. Of course there are those of a more liberal stint among so called conservatives who do not swing right when it comes to keeping and bearing arms. That is not a good thing. The truth of the matter is though that the left, has for the most part become very loony in recent years in regards to being anti conservative about anything and; an anti-firearms platform has become so much a pillar of left leaning politics, that many right leaning firearms aficionados simply see all liberals or left leaners as being anti-gun. Maybe, if those of the left who were pro-gun pushed harder for all to have arms bearing rights, they would be seen differently.

All the best,
Glenn B

Someone said this:
outlawing guns is a liberal idea And someone else answered with this:
That is such an obviously oxymoronic statement, that I can't believe you made it. The 2nd amendment is a liberty.

Actually the second quoted statement above is an oxymoron when taken in the context in which you used it. Having liberty does not mean that one is liberal. What liberal truly refers to, in the sense of government, is the liberal exercise of government power. Liberal therefore means the additional dependency upon or extra use of governmental powers. There should be a law for this, a law for that, a tax for this, a tax for that, a rule for this and a rule for that and all of them should apply to anyone to whom we choose to apply them but not necessarily to ourselves (meaning to other like minded or allied liberals).

Conservative means the opposite, a restricted use of government power, less laws enacted, less government interference with liberties, less taxes and so forth.

Liberty means the state of being free to do as one wishes, to enjoy ones rights and privileges without being under the tyranny of a despot who would restrict you from doing so. Of course any rational government restricts liberty to some extent, however; under a truly conservative government liberty is conserved to the maximum reasonable extent but, under a liberal government liberty is subject to a liberal amount of laws and restrictions.

It is, in my opinion, truly a shame that someone would try to twist around the meaning of liberty to make it seem as one with the meaning of the word liberal! The British Government was quite liberal in its exercise of governmental powers over the colonists in America; it regularly restricted the colonists' liberties even though people on the isle of Great Britain still enjoyed such liberties. Therefore came a revolt to overthorow said government and its liberal exercise of goverment power in the form of taxation and other regulations and laws. The end product hoped for by those who waged war against the Crown was a conservation of the rights, privileges and liberties that belonged to men since before organized governments existed. If you check governments throughout history, those that were either very liberal or very conservative regarding liberty, you will find this to be as plain as the nose on your face.


Best regards,
Glenn B

Glenn. Come now. That is simply ridiculous.

Hmm, then I guess the founding fathers of the USA were ridiculous in their writings, and in their reasons for waging war. What a shame.

Mr. Bartley,

In my slight education in history and philology, I have learned that the term "liberal" is a word which means many things in many contexts. Can you point me to writings of the Fathers that say they are fighting liberalism, or that liberalism equals overweening government power?

According to the S.F. Chronicle article, he was given an exemption from the CA Dept of Justice, since he had a criminal conviction for beating up his wife, to get the CCW

Say WHAT?

How can the CA Dept of Justice trump the federal Lautenberg law? If true, then what in diety's name is going on here - the gun groups should be all over this one: Regular, law-abiding folks with no criminal history are being forcibly disarmed in a city with rampant crime and virtually no police help, while at the same time a celeb with a convictions for wife-beating is traipsing around that same city with guns, caught red-handed in clear violation of the Lautenberg law? It's so outrageous that I doubt it's true. (sure hope not)

According to the SF Chronicle report, he did have a CCW. and I remember reading about Sean's conviction for beating up his wife. I'm not sure about the discrepancy between the federal and state laws. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that someone rich and who knows the right people got around a law.

How many here consider the Lautenburg Amendment unconstitutional? Okay if it's used on someone you don't like?

:rolleyes:

No, our problem is that it's used on everyone EXCEPT a celebrity.

"Unjust and unevenly applied" is worse than just "unjust."

It's OK if your soon to be Ex gets an EPO on you and they take away your guns as long as Sean Penn can't have one?

"Unjust and unevely applied" is worse than just "unjust."

+1

Maybe he'll be mistaken for a looter and shot by the po-lice!

According to the SF Chronicle report, he did have a CCW. and I remember reading about Sean's conviction for beating up his wife. I'm not sure about the discrepancy between the federal and state laws. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that someone rich and who knows the right people got around a law.
This is why I feel "may issue" is in some ways worse than "no issue": if the influential people "have theirs", there is less incentive to extend the right to the little people.

It's OK if your soon to be Ex gets an EPO on you and they take away your guns as long as Sean Penn can't have one?

You are either pretty slow on the uptake or deliberately misinterpreting what I wrote.

One more time:

Lautenberg is BAD. Unevenly applied Lautenberg is EVEN MORE BAD.

Any questions?

You don't have a problem with Penn being armed in a dangerous place?

Conservative means the opposite, a restricted use of government power, less laws enacted, less government interference with liberties, less taxes and so forth. Yet the "conservative" gov't in place now wants to tell everyone who they can marry and who they can't, and what women can do with their bodies and what they can't....just to name two examples.

Point being, the lines have been blurred over the past decade or so. Not everything is cut-and-dry as many people describe.

Yet the "conservative" gov't in place now wants to tell everyone who they can marry and who they can't, and what women can do with their bodies and what they can't....just to name two examples. And those examples can lead a thinking person to the opposite conclusion -- but neither are fair game on THR. :mad:

Maybe he'll be mistaken for a looter and shot by the po-lice!

that would be a tragedy :rolleyes:

elitist :cuss:

Lautenberg is BAD. Unevenly applied Lautenberg is EVEN MORE BAD.

Exactly. I don't know why that is so difficult for Derby to understand. We the peasants must live by the illegal unconstitutional law, but that's ok because at least the celebs and other rich folks who are convicted wife-beaters can stay armed.

I'm sorry. I didn't know you were a peasant. I would be POed too.

Fistful,

First you call my posts ridiculous, now you want me to take time to cite sources. Are you having aftern thoguhts or are you just flaming as I suspect. Read the writings of them yourself about the meaning of liberty, there is nothing of liberalism in it. Read why they revolted against what has always been known as one of the most liberal tax, regulate and spend governments in the world, that of Great Britain. They need not mention the word liberal or liberalism in order for one to realize this is of what they speak and in order to realize they wished to be conservative in the amount of Federal Government powers. The terms liberal and conservative came into political vogue years after they were dead, yet you can still take those terms, look back, and apply them quite properly to the different types of government that were at play in their times.

You are insulting and then want some sort of something extra from me for you. Read them yourself, make up your own mind, I will not try to make it up for you, nor will I do your homework for you because you obviously have already formulated a bedrock conclusion. Please be so considerate as to stop pulling my chain. Thanks.

Recall that I stated that conservatives try to attain less interference from government, less governmental control over our liberties, rights and privileges. I guess I could not explain it any better than the founding fathers did in the words that follow. If you cannot see, in those words, that there is a definitive battle between those who would conserve our rights and liberties by having less restrictive and more protective a government as opposed to those who would use a more liberal application of government power that ultimately leads to a stripping away of our rights, privileges and liberties, well what can I say to that. You have obviously made up your mind that anything I write is RIDUCULOUS!

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refuted his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. --And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Glenn, from where I sit, “liberals” want to limit certain freedoms, while “conservatives” want to limit others. I value all my freedoms. That’s why the RKBA is so important; it’s the last line of defense against both liberal and conservative tyrants.

For what it’s worth, which is nothing, the Founders were the “liberals” of their day.

~G. Fink

You see, Liberal has become, like "Deluxe" - meaningless.

Glenn, quite rightly, says liberals are leftist wieners who want to take away our guns (I am paraphrasing)

fistful says that the FF's were "Liberals" so shut up (paraphrasing again).

Unfortunately they are BOTH RIGHT.

The waters have been muddied by Hannity and Coulter and suchlike that routinely throw "liberal" around willy nilly.

The word you need is SOCIALIST. Say it out loud.

ALL SOCIALISTS ARE BAD.

Unlike "Liberals" you can't point to one particular Socialist and say "well he was OK so you are full of it"

Socialists want to take away your guns.
People who vote for Kerry, Schumer etc. are supporting Socialists.
The Democratic (sic) party is run by Socialists.
If you support a Democrat you are supporting Socialism.
If you are on this board supporting Socialism then you get what you deserve.
Because you can't logically support the Democratic (sic) party and support gun ownership.

Such silly mind games are called Cognitive Dissonance.

Thank You

G

Fellas! Fellas! Take it easy! Let's get this discussion back on track!


So, what were we talking about. . . ? Oh yeah, Sean Penn, Sean Penn.

Fast Times at Ridegemont High!

Phoebe Cates coming out of the pool! That's what I'm talkin' about!

And Jennifer Jason Leigh. . . . who's dad was Vic Morrow. . . of 60's TV series "Combat".

See, it's all about the circle of life.

You may resume your arguements about conservative vs. liberal vs. socialists.

The word you need is SOCIALIST. Say it out loud.

ALL SOCIALISTS ARE BAD.


i still call them all commies

but what i dont get is the people that say the nazis were conservtive. can anyone explain that?

what i dont get is the people that say the nazis were conservtive. can anyone explain that? Oh, that's very simple. The NAZI's were all Jew-hating racist totalitarians, just like us conservatives. Excuse me for a moment while I go and skip gaily along on the sore backs of the proleteriat.

Nazi's were national socialists Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP)

Their modern counterpart are today's Democrats; godless animists.

It's too bad a New York Post editor couldn't have demonstrated a little more creativity by running a screamin' 3-inch block print caption under that pic - one that would have really roiled Penn's left-wing Hollyweird associates, like:

ACTOR PENN HELPS FEDS RESTORE ORDER.
TELLS N.O. LOOTERS: 'WHAT UP NOW, HOMIES?'

:D

Stauble:i still call them all commies
but what i dont get is the people that say the nazis were conservtive. can anyone explain that?

Yes I can.

You can call them all commies and mostly you would be right, as all commies are also Socialists.
However, Not all Socialists are commies.
Hitler was a Socialist, Stalin was a Socialist.

Where they differ is more in the flavor than the substance. And this is the ugly secret of Socialism and why the left in general always refers to the Nazis as right wing or conservative.

Hitler was a National Socialist.
He emphasized unity, Fatherland, xenophobia and jingoism.
The country was the party. All other countries must be subject to the party. This is where the conservative part comes from.
He was "conservative" as far as patriotism is concerned - he wanted to build up Germany as a Socialist country rather than Socialism as a philosophy.

Stalin (etc. because it includes all kinds of commies) was an International Socialist.
He (they) emphasized unity, Brotherhood, Borderless Society and collectivism.
The party was the country, all other countries must be subject to the party.

So you can see in post WW1 Germany with rampant unemployment, the depression and crushing inflation the two flavors of Socialism could flourish.

One blamed the Capitalists for crushing the workers (Communism), the other blamed the foreigners (Jews, French etc) for crushing the German spirit (Fascism).

The end result is cruel dictatorship because it is all about crime and punishment (no not Dostoevsky) but the ability of the state to create laws and punish transgressors.

Here's a useful quote:A host of critics and idealistic revolutionists arose in Germany, but more important was the survival or revival of Babouvism in secret French and Italian revolutionary societies, intent on overthrowing the established governments and on setting up a new, propertyless society. It was among them that the terms communism and socialism were first used. They were used vaguely and more or less interchangeably, although there was a tendency to use the term socialist to denote those who merely stressed a strong state as the owner of all means of production, and the term communist for those who stressed the abolition of all private property (except immediate personal goods).

http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/history/A0857487.html

An old adage says a Communist is a Socialist in a hurry.

G

You don't have a problem with Penn being armed in a dangerous place?

Personally? Yeah, I have a problem with it. He's a spoiled brat who clearly can't control his impulses, who, as far as I can tell, has no business being in the flood zone anyway.

My main problem with Lautenberg is that a) it is applied ex post facto, which is clearly unjust, and b) that folks who have otherwise paid their debt to society are left without a fundamental human right.

So, from a public policy standpoint, I think Penn should have the right to carry.

From a personal standpoint, I think that he shouldn't be trusted with a grapefruit spoon, and that he should go home and STFU.

But that's just me. :)

Wonder how our boy Sean will explain this the next time he's on Oprah?

Just a quick word re "liberal"
English is now the international language and the language of the internet, probably because it is spoken in the USA. I used to teach English overseas with native English speakers of all types: Australians, New Zealanders, Northern Americans (of both flavours-or should that be flavors?), British, Irish, South Africans. I was very interested in the way we all used the same language differently. In my estimation, about 70% was identical (ie. international standard english), the rest was peculiar to the person's nationality/region/background. Sometimes, people came up with a word or expression that was incomprehensible to the others. Anyway, it is very easy have misunderstandings or disagreements on the meanings of words.
For me, here, in Australia, "liberal" is simply the adjectival form of "liberty/to liberate" meaning free or unrestrained. But its meaning is coloured(colored) by the Liberal Party which is now in government here. They are political conservatives but have not shown themselves to be very supportive of firearms rights here. (!)
When I read "liberal" on THR I translate it to "socialist" or perhaps "humanist" as used here in Australia. I do think that there is a worrying trend here of people wanting the government to make a wonderful place where nothing ever bad happens. Or if something bad happens - then it must be someone's fault who I should be able to sue for vast amounts of cash. That trend here has resulted in draconian firearms laws, traffic laws, government regulation of all kinds and a real infringement of my civil liberties in my opinion. With increasing technology, I wonder what kind of a world my ancestors will be living in ?
I think that you guys should follow correct debating procedure and define the way that you are using words. Argue over ideas not definitions !

re Sean Penn: To people looking at the USA from the outside, hollywood celebrities are the royalty of your country. Always on TV in magazines, always feted everywhere they go, ridiculous amounts of money. Still, I'm guilty of watching hollywood movies too.

Looks like a good choice of gun to be carrying around if you are legally allowed to especially since it has a sling which would be essential I would think. Personally I'd prefer a revolver in an OWB holster with thumb break so that I would have my hands free. Guess he was just holding it for the camera.

I think that you guys should follow correct debating procedure and define the way that you are using words. Argue over ideas not definitions ! Actually, wiz, words are definitely worth arguing over, as he who frames the debate wins. Right now, totalitarians have co-opted the word liberal, and used it to disguise their true intentions. Unlike some, I do not allow half a century's misuse of a term to redefine the term. I do not intend to allow them to call themselves liberals or progressives, (really too nice for their ilk, and totally inaccurate) while painting us as mean, stick-in-the-mud, unimaginative conservative reactionaries.


fistful says that the FF's were "Liberals" so shut up (paraphrasing again). Not a good paraphrase. I never said the Fathers were liberals, and I'm not sure I would. They called themselves republicans, I believe, and supported "popular government." They opposed tyranny and despotism, not "liberalism." And I never told GB to shut up.

The waters have been muddied by Hannity and Coulter and suchlike that routinely throw "liberal" around willy nilly. They're partly to blame, but not so much as the "liberals" that dirtied that word with their own beliefs, actions, and public policy goals (Ted Kennedy, etc).

Glenn Bartley,

When you say ridiculous things, you have no reason to be angry when I call you on it. This was not an insult to you. I did not say you were ridiculous. I would have preferred to refute you, but did not have the time, and I could not simply let your comments go by. You hit a nerve with me.

What liberal truly refers to, in the sense of government, is the liberal exercise of government power. No, sir. The fact that people have misused a term for fifty years or so does not change the meaning of the term (two hundred years, maybe). And you cannot simply define a term any way you want to, or we don't have much of a language left. That is, if we can't have some agreement on the meanings of words, we won't understand each other. What you did in your post was to propose a novel etymology for a commonly used and understood word as if it were settled fact. That is ridiculous. Modern American "liberals" don't call themselves liberals because they believe in a liberal use of govt. power. They style themselves liberals because they claim to believe in liberty, and to be the guardians of liberty against "conservatives" like you and me. That is why I wish to reclaim the term.


Likewise, you propose the novel ideas that the Fathers were fighting modern-day "liberalism," and that Great Britian was less free than other nations of its time. When you propose a new idea which contradicts accepted views, the burden of proof is on you, to show why I should agree with you. This is one reason why I ask for documentation. For all I know, you might produce some and teach me a thing or two.


Lastly, I have not formulated a bedrock conclusion, or I would be the one producing documentation to show you where the Fathers called themselves liberals, or said they supported liberalism. I seem to remember James Madison saying such a thing, but can't remember where. I do know that liberalism is used by historians to describe a post-republican mindset that viewed politics as a struggle between groups with differing interests (and therefore different public policy positions) rather than the eighteenth-century idea that politics is concerned with finding the morally right set of policies that are good for all. (Liberty and Power, by Watson).

For all those that have been wondering, it is an 870, most likely 20 ga., but it could be twelve, also. The dead giveaways are the the shape of the reciever and the curvature of the bolt. The magazine cap is definitely Remington, also. It looks exactly like my son's 20 ga. 870 Expess. Not a bad choice, for Mr. Penn to be lugging around there, although I question why he was there to begin with. ;) As for the legality issue, I would not deny him the right to defend himself in that (or any) situation, no matter his views re RKBA.

When we discuss the differences between the National Socialists (Nazis) and Marxist-Leninists (Communists), we are really talking about two peas in a pod. It is much more like talking about rival gangs in Chicago, like the Northside gang of Bugs Moran, and the Italian mob of Al Capone. There are a lot more similarities than differences. They were both dictatorships, headed by one man and his henchmen. They both used nationalism, when it suited them. They were both looking to expand their borders. They both used secret police and concentration camps/gulags to eliminate their opponents, or anyone they felt like for that matter.
The only real difference may be a distinction without a difference: The Marxists wanted to own and control the means of production. They took factories from their capitalist owners and put their own guys in them to run them for Lenin/Stalin and the party. The Nazis were happy to merely control the means of production, through a guy like Albert Speer, and leave the capitalists/industrialists, like Alfred Krupp, in charge of their own factories, taking orders from Hitler via Speer. I think you could argue that the Nazi system was more efficient, but the Marxist system, when propelled by the patriotism and exigency of the war, won.
I think the Left (Liberal/Socialist/Marxists) in this country like to associate themselves with the “progressives” of the last century. They like to call anyone who disagrees with them Nazis and conservatives because of the discrediting the Nazis have received for the Holocaust and loosing WWII. They conveniently forget the gulags of Russia, the killing fields of Cambodia, the purges of every country they took over (Cuba, Sudan, Nicaragua, etc.) On college campuses, they use Political Correctness as a way of silencing their opponents. Political Correctness started out as a joke to describe the petty tyrants on campus who were trying to enforce their will. It’s no joke now!

The only real difference may be a distinction without a difference: Philosophicaly speaking - the true marxists (which IMO did not include Stalin) did what they did out of a belief that it was for your own good. They were doing you a favor by bringing you into the communist fold.

The NAZI's on the other hand made no bones about it. They were doing what they did for the good of Germany and its leaders.

Hmmmmm... That's kinda like the difference between the Democrats and Republicans which reminds me of an old saying that goes something like this: scratch a democrat and you get a communist; scratch a republican and you get a NAZI. Not too far off the mark I guess...

They may be a little misguided, but in general they aren't stupid. Sometimes you just need a gun.

That is, if we can’t have some agreement on the meanings of words, we won’t understand each other.…
And how! See below …


The Nazis were happy to merely control the means of production … and leave the capitalists/industrialists … in charge of their own factories.…
This is why the Nazis are considered rightists. They believed in private property but expected it to be used for the benefit of the state.

The only thing that the Nazis and Soviets had in common was authoritarianism, which is not part of the left–right political axis. Authoritarianism is opposite libertarianism on the vertical axis of the political chart.

So, class, you will see that the Nazis were rightist authoritarians, while the Soviets were leftist authoritarians. Any questions?

~G. Fink

So, class, you will see that the Nazis were rightist authoritarians, while the Soviets were leftist authoritarians. Any questions?
______________________

yeah, so where does Sean Penn fit in all of this political philosophizing?

I believe Mr. Penn is probably a casual socialist, but I simply ignore him for the most part.

~G. Fink

For all those that have been wondering, it is an 870, most likely 20 ga., but it could be twelve, also. The dead giveaways are the the shape of the reciever and the curvature of the bolt. The magazine cap is definitely Remington, also. It looks exactly like my son's 20 ga. 870 Expess. Not a bad choice, for Mr. Penn to be lugging around there, although I question why he was there to begin with. As for the legality issue, I would not deny him the right to defend himself in that (or any) situation, no matter his views re RKBA.


Aaah, thank you! See now, it's nice too see people buying American. :D