Another sheeple speaks out


PDA






Monkeyleg
October 14, 2006, 11:12 PM
From Sunday's (10/15/06) letters to the editor column in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

If necessary, curtail freedom to reduce danger

Teachers armed with guns? Are we totally witless?

Are we to provide the kids who commit school shootings the added thrilling scenario of an OK Corral shoot-out? The potential for stray bullets killing innocents whose misfortune it is to just be in school that day is unthinkable. Do we not have enough children to mourn in those precious ones gunned down on our city streets? Come on, people.

Let's ban all firearms in Wisconsin except for those in the possession of our agencies meant for our protection. Many new small businesses could develop by shops opening to rent hunting guns only to animal game hunters in animal game territories.

When freedoms are abused to the point of our endangerment, everyone suffers by having those freedoms curtailed. We deserve that.

We must stop giving kids - and stupid adults - exact instructions on how to kill on TV and in movies. It is the same with sexual portrayals. Those who produce such filth make millions, getting us to subscribe to it by calling it "adult fare."

These TV and movie producers don't just think they are duping us; they actually are fooling us. I say to each of them: Do your part to stop this debased way of life in our blessed America. Now.

Betty J. Wieselman
Milwaukee


"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."--- Winston Churchill

If you enjoyed reading about "Another sheeple speaks out" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
orangelo
October 14, 2006, 11:15 PM
:barf:

I'm more and more convinced liberals should be rounded up and locked up in prison indefinitely. That's where they would all be happy any way. Every inmate is equally worthless regardless of skin color. Free health care, free education, free housing, free food. Complete gun ban and complete knife ban. Lots of diversity too, they can socialize with criminals of every skin color and culture.

SoCalShooter
October 14, 2006, 11:20 PM
:barf: debased? I thought we were just evolving. I have learned a lot of moves from porn, and macguyver has also taught me a lot. I do not blame TV producers or movie producers...stop scapegoating them and put the blame where it belongs, put it on the parents, put it on the person who commits the violent act.

Nice one Orangelo but I do think that a lot of liberals have some good points. But like any party or group of people they have their radicals and the radicals are the ones with the loudest voices.

shooter503
October 14, 2006, 11:45 PM
You guys do not seem to appreciate that liberal does not automatically equal anti-gun. Washington State, ultra liberal right? First "must issue" State in the US and they just allowed a CCW user to walk. Oregon, must issue. California, if it wasn't for SanFran and LA CA would be "must issue".

beerslurpy
October 14, 2006, 11:46 PM
Why stop at banning guns? How about we ban all crime? Everyone will follow the new rules, and we can live in an earthly paradise.

Socialists have to realize that while the legislature is indespensible for stealing our money and stopping our hobbies, it is completely useless in dealing with criminals, who by definition do not obey laws.

The purpose of laws is to codify society's customs, not to dictate what those customs should be. When the lawmakers are at odds with the population, disobedience will result, followed by:
a) widespread disregard for the law (NYC gun laws, WoD, prohibition)
b) tyranny (as the people are forced to comply) (blue state gun laws, WoD, FFL system)
c) revolt (ballot box or cartridge box, you pick) (94 AWB house cleaning)
Either of these outcomes is more difficult for the legislator than simply giving laws that confirm the customs of the people.

dasmi
October 15, 2006, 12:01 AM
California, if it wasn't for SanFran and LA CA would be "must issue".
Not quite true. San Diego is not CCW friendly. Sheriff Kolender keeps getting relected, and he won't issue to people who aren't important, or wealthy. Luckily, he's getting old fast.

Tommygunn
October 15, 2006, 12:05 AM
I do think that a lot of liberals have some good points.
Only on the tops of their heads.....:p :D

Sorry, I couldn't resist.
We must stop giving kids - and stupid adults - exact instructions on how to kill on TV and in movies.

Geesh! It's not like it's quantum physics. Which is sort of bizarre 'cause I've seen a LOT of Hollyweird stuff where it's obvious the producers didn't know which end of the tube the bullet exited.

Ms. Wieselman clearly doesn't comprehend that we have 20,000 gun laws in America, and has this bizarre idea that confiscating guns is the solution.
Interestingly, a lot of women (not all) have this idea; didn't Benjamin Franklin refer to this as "the tyranny of the petticoat?"

-- and stupid adults -- ~~has she looked in a mirror?

progunner1957
October 15, 2006, 12:16 AM
Typical senseless antigun bigot drivel...:barf:

Tens of thousands more people are injured and killed each year by motor vehicles than by the unlawful use of guns - why isn't she bleating that all motor vehicles be outlawed and confiscated (except those owned and operated by "The Government," of course).

Driving is a privlage allowed by "The Government" - it is not a Constitutional Right. Motor vehicles kill and injure more people each year by a factor of 10 or more than does the unlawful use of guns. Why does she tolerate these deaths?

Why does she tolerate the deaths caused by tobacco use?

Why does she tolerate the deaths caused by alcohol use?

Why does she tolerate the deaths caused by abortion?

Why does this woman not call for the banning of driving, tobacco, alcohol and abortion if she REALLY cares about saving lives?

I'll tell you why: These things do not threaten the implementation of her leftist/socialist political agenda.

Privately owned firearms do.

jrfoxx
October 15, 2006, 12:25 AM
When freedoms are abused to the point of our endangerment, everyone suffers by having those freedoms curtailed. We deserve that.

I agree with her completely.I am so sick of hearing morons like her abusing their 1st amendment rights by spewing thier utter stupidity, that the next time i'm hear it or read it, I may just kill myself. Therefore, We need to curtail her right to free speech ASAP.She deserves that. :D :neener: (Oh, I almost forgot to say.....It's for the children!!!!) :)


Where's the puking while putting a bullet in your head smiley........

shooter503
October 15, 2006, 12:39 AM
Once again guys. Bashing liberals may seem like fun but to a big chunk of the population you are coming across as "Bubba". The gun owning community does not need ill thought out comments such as those you express alienating people who may presently be fairly neutral on the subject of gun ownership.

Many "liberals" will accept responsible gun ownership but if you are going to act as though you intend to declare open-season on them as soon as you get the chance then guess which way they are going to vote. Cool the "every liberal is anti-gun and should be jailed" rhetoric before it bites us.

I'm more and more convinced liberals should be rounded up and locked up in prison indefinitely. That's where they would all be happy any way. Every inmate is equally worthless regardless of skin color. Free health care, free education, free housing, free food. Complete gun ban and complete knife ban. Lots of diversity too, they can socialize with criminals of every skin color and culture.


Comments like this do not help our cause. Moderator please note.

DRMMR02
October 15, 2006, 01:31 AM
It was still funny in the sense that it's ironic that prison is exactly the type of enviroment the liberals want.

Lucky
October 15, 2006, 01:32 AM
Shooter503. did you read what the guy said? Look what JRfox quoted:

"When freedoms are abused to the point of our endangerment, everyone suffers by having those freedoms curtailed. We deserve that."

Think about what that says, and what it means. Realize that it went through proof-reading and editing, and it says what the authore meant to say.

They are talking about an assault on freedom, and you don't want to hurt their feelings? If someone identifies with the author, and are offended by people's reaction to the article, their 'feelings' are the last thing you should be worried about. You should be worried about your ass first, because those people have declared that your freedoms are not important, and you should be punished for crimes you didn't commit, you deserve that.

shooter503
October 15, 2006, 01:47 AM
The thread started as a report on the opinion of one dumb woman who has no idea what she is talking about.

From there it quickly developed into a stupid rant against "liberals" in general. I live in Oregon, in many ways the people here are pretty intense about many ideas that can be called "liberal" but they are not anti-gun. It is the height of stupidity to mindlessly splash the "liberal" label about and risk turning quiet acceptance of firearm ownership into active resistance. If you read some of the opinions expressed in this thread out of context, which is how they will be presented, even I would doubt if I could trust these people with a firearm.

They are talking about an assault on freedom, and you don't want to hurt their feelings?
Lucky, Who is this "they" you are talking about? It is a "she", a single solitary disoriented "she" quoted by a media that grabbed the best quote they could get on a bad-news day. The comments of one stupid woman will fade with the next issue of the newspaper. A reputation for bigotry on the part of gun owners could haunt us for years. Heaven protect us from our own supporters. This site is called "The High Road" is it not. Bubba bigotry is not The High Road.

If you want to rant about anti-gunners go for it but don't shotgun the whole "liberal" group with the label since it is not applicable.

Prince Yamato
October 15, 2006, 02:03 AM
Well, in her world, If I were a criminal, I'd just become a game getter, then I'd use my rented gun to kill people... duh...

Lucky
October 15, 2006, 02:11 AM
Shooter, I get you. I was thinking anyone who agreed with her, but as you say not all liberals would.

crazed_ss
October 15, 2006, 05:12 AM
I'm more and more convinced liberals should be rounded up and locked up in prison indefinitely. That's where they would all be happy any way. Every inmate is equally worthless regardless of skin color. Free health care, free education, free housing, free food. Complete gun ban and complete knife ban. Lots of diversity too, they can socialize with criminals of every skin color and culture.

How do you know this person is a liberal? It sounds like this woman also wants to see porn banished. To me, that implies an extreme right-wing POV.

mike101
October 15, 2006, 07:11 AM
OK Corral? I guess she prefers the St. Vallentine's Day Massacre-type school shootings that we have now. What a maroon. :barf:

When is the last time a newspaper printed anything about a gun-owner using his weapon to PROTECT kids, I wonder?

Shooter503 is right. Not all of us "liberals" are anti-gun. But when he calls the moderators down on us, it sounds like he's looking for more regulation..............you know, like a liberal.

Autolycus
October 15, 2006, 07:45 AM
Orangelo what does skin color have to do with anything the writer said?


Sadly this is the way that many anti gunners think. It seems that people forgot that instead of denying everyone something they should deny themselves something.

RealGun
October 15, 2006, 09:40 AM
Would someone please make up their mind what the topic is here?

LightningJoe
October 15, 2006, 09:57 AM
Female suffrage: Solution or problem?

mike101
October 15, 2006, 11:13 AM
We should have never taught 'em how to read. :evil:

GunnySkox
October 15, 2006, 11:42 AM
The potential for stray bullets killing innocents whose misfortune it is to just be in school that day is unthinkable.

As opposed to the potential for the murderer to put well-controlled bullets into innocents whose misfortune it is to just be in school that day totally unhindered?

What a moron.

~GnSx

shooter503
October 15, 2006, 12:33 PM
No, MikeBurk,
The thread was started to discuss this one woman's ill considered viewpoint as submitted in a letter to a newspaper. Note, this was not an editorial, it was a letter she submitted. Distorted as her ideas might be she has a right to be heard under the Constitution, just as we believe we have a right to bear arms.

My appeal to the Moderator was because the thread was hijacked by individuals whose main object was to launch a tirade against "liberals" that could do far more harm to the cause of gun ownership than it could do good.

Progunner1957 is, in my opinion, in bounds, he used facts. Orangelo is not.

I live amongst a group of liberals. I asked them if the shooting on my range bothered them. The reply was "not if your firing in a safe direction". We can't afford to lose the support of this group by bashing them and saying they should all be in jail.

gc70
October 15, 2006, 01:19 PM
Hi Betty,

Since you are more than willing to scrap the First and Second Amendments, are there any other constitutional rights that you want to give up so that you will feel safer?

Betty is a good example of what happens to a species when something intervenes in the process of natural selection.

SoCalShooter
October 15, 2006, 02:53 PM
If it is left up to people like this Betty person our "blessed america" aint gonna be so blessed once we are disarmed and cops and criminals have guns.

Colt
October 15, 2006, 05:49 PM
Comments like this do not help our cause. Moderator please note.

Everyone pay attention. If Shooter503 doesn't feel your comments "help our cause", you'll be reported to the moderator.

Socialism anyone?

HEY! Get your hands off of me! <Colt is blindfolded and led away by a moderator...>

shooter503
October 15, 2006, 06:19 PM
The purpose of laws is to codify society's customs, not to dictate what those customs should be. When the lawmakers are at odds with the population, disobedience will result, followed by:
a) widespread disregard for the law (NYC gun laws, WoD, prohibition)
b) tyranny (as the people are forced to comply) (blue state gun laws, WoD, FFL system)
c) revolt (ballot box or cartridge box, you pick) (94 AWB house cleaning)
Either of these outcomes is more difficult for the legislator than simply giving laws that confirm the customs of the people.

Beerslurpy, under present law advocacy of your item c) is sufficient to get someone locked up, without charge or promise of hearing, for an indefinite period. It will be a far more likely event if anti-gun forces really get into power. I suggest you do not express thoughts in public that you may regret later. I would be very surprised if this site was not visited by people who are "data mining" for future use.

When
HEY! Get your hands off of me! <Colt is blindfolded and led away by a moderator...>
becomes
HEY! Get your hands off of me! <Colt is blindfolded and led away by Police...>

utahminirevolver
October 15, 2006, 06:24 PM
"she has a right to be heard under the Constitution"

A liberal is reminding us conservatives of this important point, thank you.

Now please remind your fellow liberals,such as Barbara Streisand, who recently shouted "Shut the f*** up!" to some guy in the audience who questioned her anti-Bush tirade. IIRC, Babs isn't too big on second amendment freedom either.

thexrayboy
October 15, 2006, 06:38 PM
Yes this lady has the right to be heard under the constitution. And the rest of us have the right to consider her an idiot. Apparently she fails to realize that when only the police have guns you live in a police state. Her diatribe merely supports the position the as a species we are not intelligent. Some individuals yes but on average no. The average voter can't think, they can only emote.

shooter503
October 15, 2006, 06:46 PM
A liberal is reminding us conservatives of this important point, thank you.

Your conservative friends seem to have forgotten about it. I would say that all they do is whine about letters sent to an editor and do damn all about it. Do any of them send a letter in reply? - Whoops, stop that thought, they would probably write and say that any woman who advocates gun control should immediately be thrown into a prison for male sex offenders without trial.

Some of your conservative, that's your word, friends come across in print as bigoted blowhards and their statements do nothing to help to protect our right to be armed. Barely a post I've read on this thread would help our cause one little bit if it was given to an average citizen to compare with the letter from that disillusioned woman. It is the average citizen who votes.

I am a liberal in that I prefer to see my trees standing and my rivers clean, which is because I hunt and fish. I prefer to see our elders looked after in their old age, these are the people that made the country we are fortunate enough to live in, they fought our wars for us. I am also morally conservative and pro-gun and I make the effort to defend my beliefs in the newspaper rather than hiding behind the internet when I am attacked by a little old lady.

When one of your friends can show he is doing something positive to fight gun control other than whining about being beaten down by a little old lady call me back. I would love to hear about it.

Art Eatman
October 15, 2006, 07:48 PM
I am reminded of Gertrude Stein's comment about Oakland...

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "Another sheeple speaks out" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!