stevelyn
Member
No.........People want to hang you for violating your oath of office and infringing on their freedoms.
Gun-rights banner at Capitol draws outcry over its language
- Thread starter Desertdog
- Start date
- Status
No.........People want to hang you for violating your oath of office and infringing on their freedoms.
Outlaw Man
Member
I'm sorry, but to me that sounds like saying you shouldn't own German made guns because the Nazis used to use German made guns or saying you shouldn't drive a Toyota because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.crazed ss said:
The majority of the patriots and probably all of the tyrrants who fed the Tree of Liberty were white. I'm failing to recall the genocide of Puerto Ricans during the American Revolution.
I find it appalling that a group can cry out about being stripped of their Second Amendment rights and people will turn around and try to attack their First Amendment rights. It may not have been done with the best tact but they have every right to do so. Washington, Jefferson and the rest would likely have been right there beside them.
JohnBT
Member
Having the right to say anything you like doesn't mean you have to use it in a counterproductive way. Appearances are important, especially when the media is involved.
John
Edited to add: I seriously doubt Mr. Jefferson would have resorted to so ineloquent a banner. Mr. Washington either. And the rest? I mean have you read Patrick Henry's speeches? Moving and eloquent. These were men of substance. I doubt if they resorted to putting bumper stickers on their horses hind ends to get their points across.
John
Edited to add: I seriously doubt Mr. Jefferson would have resorted to so ineloquent a banner. Mr. Washington either. And the rest? I mean have you read Patrick Henry's speeches? Moving and eloquent. These were men of substance. I doubt if they resorted to putting bumper stickers on their horses hind ends to get their points across.
SamTuckerMTNMAN
Member
not tactical....but
I'd rather deal with political incorrectness and slight offensiveness from ANY RACE, white, black, mexican, asian, Native, any any any, than have corrupt power hungry men in suits who do and say far worse behind closed doors telling me I have to let THEM know what I own and have for the defense of myself and country.
So high roaders, stand smart, but stand.
ST
I'd rather deal with political incorrectness and slight offensiveness from ANY RACE, white, black, mexican, asian, Native, any any any, than have corrupt power hungry men in suits who do and say far worse behind closed doors telling me I have to let THEM know what I own and have for the defense of myself and country.
So high roaders, stand smart, but stand.
ST
Joe Demko
Member
Yes, they had every right to do it. It was predictable how it would be spun, but they had the right. Nobody is disputing that. What is under discussion is the political fallout from their exercising that right. YMMV, but I'm more in favor of winning political battles than I am of making dramatic philosophical points.
Carl N. Brown
Member
I have advocated stopping and thinking before speaking:
"Anything you say will be taken out of context and used against you."
As with the assumption that "crazed ss" was a white supremacist
or something rather than a Super Sport fanatic (a mistaken assumption
I once had), it pays to stop, learn and think.
"Anything you say will be taken out of context and used against you."
As with the assumption that "crazed ss" was a white supremacist
or something rather than a Super Sport fanatic (a mistaken assumption
I once had), it pays to stop, learn and think.
ATW525
Member
Legislative White Caucus? Are you kidding me? The Legislative Black Caucus would be up in arms screaming bloody murder about racism if anybody dared to form such an organization. Everybody knows that politcal groups intended specifically to benefit people of your race are racist... unless you're not white. After all, we still have to atone for all those slaves that none of us has ever owned.
Outlaw Man
Member
I'm not saying the banner couldn't have used some work. I'm sure Patrick Henry could have written one that would have brought tears to the eyes of some people. But the bottom line is they'd be out there doing something. Most of the Founding Fathers would have been members of the legislature, most likely, but barring that they'd be writing to legislators and newspapers, making banners or flyers (like "Common Sense"), making public protests and other methods of trying to sway the government and the people - all of which were used at one point or another by our Founding Fathers.JohnBT said:
I'm sure they'd have loved the internet.
I honestly don't see what's so bad about what they did. Sure, over the last few decades we've become a country of egg-shell walkers, trying our best not to offend anyone, but sometimes some people need to be offended. They need to wake up to what's going on or they're going to wake up one day in a prison state. "The squeeky wheel always gets the grease." "Bad publicity is still publicity." What I'm saying is we need to be making noise - more noise than the anti-gun croud (who use tactics that are at least this untactful every day) is making. Who cares what the media thinks? They're against us, anyway. Congress is who we need to be concerned with.
That's where this is unfortunate. Had 100,000 people shown up to fly that banner it would be a statement that none of the legislators would soon forget. With just a small turnout, the legislators can dismiss it as an isolated group of crazies. The difference is numbers, not the message.
If you have to shoot someone to save your life are you going to first stop and think how many people will be offended by you using your gun or how the media will portray it? The fight against gun control is a fight for your life - at least the only kind of life I'd want to live. In a life or death situation there are no rules, there is no diplomacy, there is only kill or be killed.
TnRebel
Member
Could someone please post a picture of this tree of liberty ? I don't remember ever seeing one and while they are at it can we say 1st amendment 
Rev. DeadCorpse
Member
JohnBT
I thought about this paragraph for a second. You are right. TJ and his little band of Founding playmates would have just DONE IT instead of "talking" about it or putting up silly signs.
Sic Semper Tyrannis
I thought about this paragraph for a second. You are right. TJ and his little band of Founding playmates would have just DONE IT instead of "talking" about it or putting up silly signs.
Sic Semper Tyrannis
cuchulainn
Member
The idiots who unfurled that sign -- and anyone in this thread who agrees with them -- are enemies of the RKBA.
Enemies.
This has nothing to do with being PC. It has to do with avoiding stupidity.
You think you're standing up for your liberty, but you're simply playing into the hands of the likes of Sarah Brady and Chuck Schumer.
This is just the sort of thing that Brady/Schumer, etc. can use to solidify the demonization of gun owners ... to link us to murderers like Tim McVeigh or Seung-Hui Cho.
It accomplishes ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for our side. It scares nobody. It changes no minds. It effects no change in law or policy.
It does, however, drive the wedge further between us and the general American people. It gives aid and comfort to the very people you call traitors. It lets them play the victim.
Morons, Morons, Morons.
To think -- I may lose my remaining liberties someday because idiots like some of you care more about venting your feelings than about handing anti-gun propaganda to the grabbers.
The left-wingers have nothing on our side when it comes to being slaves to feelings.
And that's the THR version of what I think.
Enemies.
This has nothing to do with being PC. It has to do with avoiding stupidity.
You think you're standing up for your liberty, but you're simply playing into the hands of the likes of Sarah Brady and Chuck Schumer.
This is just the sort of thing that Brady/Schumer, etc. can use to solidify the demonization of gun owners ... to link us to murderers like Tim McVeigh or Seung-Hui Cho.
It accomplishes ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for our side. It scares nobody. It changes no minds. It effects no change in law or policy.
It does, however, drive the wedge further between us and the general American people. It gives aid and comfort to the very people you call traitors. It lets them play the victim.
Morons, Morons, Morons.
To think -- I may lose my remaining liberties someday because idiots like some of you care more about venting your feelings than about handing anti-gun propaganda to the grabbers.
The left-wingers have nothing on our side when it comes to being slaves to feelings.
And that's the THR version of what I think.
rev214
Member
no news good news?
ironic that few outside of the Harrisburg area would have known that there was a "gun rights proponents" rally that day if it wasn't for the stupid sign...local media had no or limited coverage until the story was picked up about the sign...no shock that the philthy inquirer is always spinnin' their political point of view...
ironic that few outside of the Harrisburg area would have known that there was a "gun rights proponents" rally that day if it wasn't for the stupid sign...local media had no or limited coverage until the story was picked up about the sign...no shock that the philthy inquirer is always spinnin' their political point of view...
cuchulainn, it sounds like you're so concerned about 'not playing into the hands of the likes of....' such and such in the opposition, that you might not advocate doing much of anything. you sound hamstrung. i'm getting to the point of not worrying so much about driving wedges between 'us' and the general public, because frankly, the general public is asleep at the wheel, if not actively a part of the problem.
our revolutionary ancestors most assuredly did NOT have the support of the general public everywhere they were. in many cases, they were a minority. the acted in the face of opposition even from fellow colonists. you don't fight a fight in such a way where nobody knows you're fighting. this almost clandestine political way of approaching the right to bear arms may have its place in our fight, but it's not the only approach, and should not be considered as such. we benefit from the knowledge of combined arms in the military, we should apply that understanding to this struggle. you hit them with everything you have. doing things behind the scenes, or quietly working in the system is fine..many here do that. oleg creates his images, others contribute with money, some are teachers and pass along knowledge of our cause that way. and some who are willing to be on point, most assuredly should be in people's faces sometimes, letting them know that there is the very real potential that these arms we keep and bear could someday be brought against them in a very tangible way if they continue to push and push, and betray our constitution and the will of the people that guard it.
our revolutionary ancestors most assuredly did NOT have the support of the general public everywhere they were. in many cases, they were a minority. the acted in the face of opposition even from fellow colonists. you don't fight a fight in such a way where nobody knows you're fighting. this almost clandestine political way of approaching the right to bear arms may have its place in our fight, but it's not the only approach, and should not be considered as such. we benefit from the knowledge of combined arms in the military, we should apply that understanding to this struggle. you hit them with everything you have. doing things behind the scenes, or quietly working in the system is fine..many here do that. oleg creates his images, others contribute with money, some are teachers and pass along knowledge of our cause that way. and some who are willing to be on point, most assuredly should be in people's faces sometimes, letting them know that there is the very real potential that these arms we keep and bear could someday be brought against them in a very tangible way if they continue to push and push, and betray our constitution and the will of the people that guard it.
cuchulainn
Member
No, I'm advocating against being a moron.
We're in a propaganda war. If you don't care about what you say: YOU are part of the problem; YOU are asleep at the wheel; YOU are an ally of the grabbers; YOU are actively giving them aid.
So what? This ain't 1776. Changing minds works differently now. The media/propaganda machine is well-oiled and working full steam against us.
Our rights haven't changed since 1776. Our political reality has.
Assuming we can behave in 2007 just like someone did in 1776 is idiocy.
In these days of zero tolerance and political correctness I have to applaud these gentlemen for expressing their opinion and probably the thoughts of many other in such a bold fashion. Likewise its not my place to comment on the "appropriateness" of their sign.
This is a free country. Some of you need to remember this.
This is a free country. Some of you need to remember this.
Assuming we can behave in 2007 just like someone did in 1776 is idiocy.
i didn't assert that. i stated that in their struggle, they frequently fought without the support of the general public.
i did however suggest in a previous post, that there are certain aspects of their approach that we could benefit from utilizing. though i will refrain from using any derivative of the word 'idiot', i will inform you that assuming that there are no aspects of 18th century revolutionary behaviour that we can use to great effect is non-sensical, and simply reinforces my concern with people only being willing to play by the rules set by the opposition.
i didn't assert that. i stated that in their struggle, they frequently fought without the support of the general public.
i did however suggest in a previous post, that there are certain aspects of their approach that we could benefit from utilizing. though i will refrain from using any derivative of the word 'idiot', i will inform you that assuming that there are no aspects of 18th century revolutionary behaviour that we can use to great effect is non-sensical, and simply reinforces my concern with people only being willing to play by the rules set by the opposition.
cuchulainn
Member
Utter bull. Talking like an 18th Century revolutionary at best will get you rolled eyes and at worst will harm the very position you advocate.
In 1776 Henry, Paine, Jefferson et al. were not stupid enough to try to use religious arguments from 1545: "God shall smite thee if you disagree with me!" Why? Because -- shocker, shocker, shocker -- in the 231 intervening years people changed.
What worked in 1545 would have failed in 1776. What worked in 1776 will fail now. What works now will fail in 2238. What will work in 2238 will fail in 2469.
Rev. DeadCorpse
Member
Ok... how's this:
"If you try and take my Rights away from me, I will kill you."
Is that 21st Century enough? It is, after all, a direct analog to the flowery prose in vogue during the Founding of our Country. We wrested control from our parent Country by FORCE. We then set up a system whereby individual Rights and Freedoms were to be protected to previously unheard of levels.
Now, our "democracy" is no longer the "Republic" it was designed to be and many of us are wondering why our legislators and litigators think that there will be no repercussions from them attempting to revert us to serfdom again. The motivations present in human psychology 5000 years ago are still the same ones operative today. You can try and play it off that 200+ years ago language was different, but humans themselves were no different than they are today.
There is no "peaceful" solution to this. There will be no magic "letter to the editor" or lawsuit that will reverse this trend.
We'll either restore the Republic by the same means we created it, or we all may as well line up for the boxcars to the camps now.
General Geoff
Member
I find absolutely nothing wrong with what these people did. Technically they're right. Cruz is guilty of treason of the highest order by blatantly disregarding both the United States Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution, and attempting to infringe on the basic rights of his constituents.
The beauty of this country is that the protesters have every right to make that banner. It is in no way, shape or form a threat. It's an opinion. "Cruz should be hanged." They're not saying "We are going to hang Cruz," or "Cruz is going to be hanged," which would both imply threats of physical violence. But by saying he should be hanged, that implies swift justice through legitimate capital punishment.
I agree that public relations pretty much necessitate the use of more politically correct slogans and banners than what these people used, but I can't condemn them for saying what I'm thinking.
The beauty of this country is that the protesters have every right to make that banner. It is in no way, shape or form a threat. It's an opinion. "Cruz should be hanged." They're not saying "We are going to hang Cruz," or "Cruz is going to be hanged," which would both imply threats of physical violence. But by saying he should be hanged, that implies swift justice through legitimate capital punishment.
I agree that public relations pretty much necessitate the use of more politically correct slogans and banners than what these people used, but I can't condemn them for saying what I'm thinking.
Bubbles
Member
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. -- Thomas Jefferson
As a long-time gun rights activist I find nothing wrong with the sign. It certainly isn't racist. If the people who put it up are guilty of anything, it is the crime of being so naive as to think that some group wouldn't overreact and blow its meaning out of proportion, or try to twist it to fit their own agenda.
Also unsurprising is that the newspaper article never explains the phrase "tree of liberty" or its historical context in our society. Of course, had the reporter done that then the liberal Dim politicians would have looked like blithering twits... and speaking of which, if those politicians don't understand the context then they don't know enough about our history and form of government to be making laws for the rest of us.
As a long-time gun rights activist I find nothing wrong with the sign. It certainly isn't racist. If the people who put it up are guilty of anything, it is the crime of being so naive as to think that some group wouldn't overreact and blow its meaning out of proportion, or try to twist it to fit their own agenda.
Also unsurprising is that the newspaper article never explains the phrase "tree of liberty" or its historical context in our society. Of course, had the reporter done that then the liberal Dim politicians would have looked like blithering twits... and speaking of which, if those politicians don't understand the context then they don't know enough about our history and form of government to be making laws for the rest of us.
cuchulainn
Member
Everytime you say something like that, Sarah Brady does a little girlish jig of glee. We will lose because of people like you.
You don't have the patience, will and maturity to stick it out on the soap, ballot and jury boxes. You cut and run as soon as the going gets tough.
You are a quitter.
And yet you want us to think you'll stick around if it comes to the bullet box? Spare me.
You're just a little boy fantasizing about playing war. Bang! Bang! Bang! Kapow! Kapow! Kapow!
General Geoff
Member
You're incorrect, cuchulainn. He's just telling it how it is. It's inconsequential whether Sarah Brady giggles with glee if/when she hears him say that, the point is that he will not compromise on his rights.
I don't see how that makes him a quitter.
Politics shouldn't matter to those who don't peddle lies.
I don't see how that makes him a quitter.
Politics shouldn't matter to those who don't peddle lies.
45Badger
Member
Those buffoons could have used a lesson on your tag line.
Freedon, liberty and rights may be absolute. Their application, execution, and exercise are often best accompanied with a bit of thoughfulness (like Henry, Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, etc). Being aware of the political, social, economic, and physical environment, and using that awareness to craft your message generally leads to better outcomes. Patrick Henry did not say, "give me liberty, or give me death" in King George's court in London. The latter might have happened quickly, and his words would not have leaked out, inspired others, or survived a couple hundred years.
I'm sure their hearts and minds were in the right place. The execution of those feelings and thoughts did not result in their (I hope) expected outcome. They did not sway or intimidate Cruz, and they opened the door to a bunch of BS. I don't think they were racially motivated, just stupid. They have lost control of their message, and given the upper hand to the more sophisticated users, managers, and manipulators of public communications.
Again- dumb, dumb, dumb.
Joe Demko
Member
It's simple. If he can't be counted on to fight the physically safe propaganda war in an effective manner, why on Urth would I count on him to fight the far more demanding and dangerous shooting war?
- Status
