Posted: 2/18/2011 5:52:53 AM EDT
|
This is a forum that is ultimately rooted in exercising and enjoying the inalienable rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. I don't think anyone would argue that. With that in mind, Arfcom has been the final straw in convincing me that, regardless of who is at the helm of this nation, sitting in the oval office, the United States is doomed based on the ignorance and selfishness of its population.
Lately I have seen MANY examples of people blatantly disregarding the Constitutional Rights of others with whom they may disagree or outright dislike. It is perfectly fine to disagree with or dislike (or even hate someone), provided you don't infringe upon their rights. There are a lot of posters on Arfcom that seem all to eager to do just that. Here are a few recent examples that come to mind: People whooping it up over the photo of people killed at Kent State- what if that had been a gathering of anti-NFA activists instead of hippies? Would you feel the same way? Constitutionally, they are afforded the same rights. People thrilled about police officers "tuning up" a suspect in the "Cops caught on Video" thread. Did you feel the same way about the actions of the police in the Long Island Airport/Firearms arrest thread? If not, why not? Did a personal bias come into play? A few folks didn't seem to miffed that an attorney's home was "no-knocked" by the DEA while serving a completely wrong warrant over phantom drug money. What if you were "no-knocked" by the ATF because someone did some alchemistic algebra and decided that your two gun purchases this last month meant you were selling weapons to the Mexican cartels? There are many, many other examples of this too. My point is, it's great to be opinionated, to believe in the way you live your life, and to advocate for societal change. That's all well and good. But I believe that many of us, despite belonging to a persecuted group (gun enthusiasts), are truly gleeful about Constitutional oversights and law enforcement overzealousness in the erroneous persecution of those whom we disagree with. In reality, we are a hair's breadth away from suffering this same persecution ourselves. The Constitution is an umbrella. It covers us all, whether we are dirty long-haired hippies or retired Gunnery Sgts. You can't cherrypick, or else it will come back to haunt us. Fire away. 
|
|
Quoted:
This is a forum that is ultimately rooted in exercising and enjoying the inalienable rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. I don't think anyone would argue that. With that in mind, Arfcom has been the final straw in convincing me that, regardless of who is at the helm of this nation, sitting in the oval office, the United States is doomed based on the ignorance and selfishness of its population. Lately I have seen MANY examples of people blatantly disregarding the Constitutional Rights of others with whom they may disagree or outright dislike. It is perfectly fine to disagree with or dislike (or even hate someone), provided you don't infringe upon their rights. There are a lot of posters on Arfcom that seem all to eager to do just that. Here are a few recent examples that come to mind: People whooping it up over the photo of people killed at Kent State- what if that had been a gathering of anti-NFA activists instead of hippies? Would you feel the same way? Constitutionally, they are afforded the same rights. Weren't they rioting, looting, and/or destroying property? Criminals don't carry much sentiment around here. People thrilled about police officers "tuning up" a suspect in the "Cops caught on Video" thread. Did you feel the same way about the actions of the police in the Long Island Airport/Firearms arrest thread? If not, why not? Did a personal bias come into play? Because a guy caught robbing a place deserves a tune up, a woman taking a picture doesn't deserve to be mocked, ridiculed, oogled, and held wrongfully. A few folks didn't seem to miffed that an attorney's home was "no-knocked" by the DEA while serving a completely wrong warrant over phantom drug money. What if you were "no-knocked" by the ATF because someone did some alchemistic algebra and decided that your two gun purchases this last month meant you were selling weapons to the Mexican cartels?
I disagree with the no-knock. ATF should be held accountable, they were faulty in their work. There are many, many other examples of this too. My point is, it's great to be opinionated, to believe in the way you live your life, and to advocate for societal change. That's all well and good. But I believe that many of us, despite belonging to a persecuted group (gun enthusiasts), are truly gleeful about Constitutional oversights and law enforcement overzealousness in the erroneous persecution of those whom we disagree with. In reality, we are a hair's breadth away from suffering this same persecution ourselves.
The Constitution is an umbrella. It covers us all, whether we are dirty long-haired hippies or retired Gunnery Sgts. You can't cherrypick, or else it will come back to haunt us. Fire away. I think most people here believe that when you step over to the wrong side of the law you incur harsh penalty, as such we don't really care that some low-life gets "taken around the block" but we do care about constitutional rights of people who are not breaking the law and are posing no threat to another persons self or property. |
|
Quoted:
People whooping it up over the photo of people killed at Kent State- what if that had been a gathering of anti-NFA activists instead of hippies? Would you feel the same way? Constitutionally, they are afforded the same rights. Bad example. The protesters at Kent State were rioting, damaging and destroying private and public property, were confirmed to have been throwing rocks at the Guardsmen and there are strong and credible reports they fired shots that the Guardsmen right before they returned fire in self defense. Now, was the return fire poorly disciplined and aimed? Yes. But when you are an angry mob out destroying property and setting fires, and then you attack the people sent to stop you, those people have no obligation to just sit and be attacked, and have every right to exercise their god-given right to self defense. Revisionist history likes to portray the National Guard as the agressors at Kent State. In reality the rioting mob were the agressors, they just bit off more than they could chew. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
People whooping it up over the photo of people killed at Kent State- what if that had been a gathering of anti-NFA activists instead of hippies? Would you feel the same way? Constitutionally, they are afforded the same rights. Bad example. The protesters at Kent State were rioting, damaging and destroying private and public property, were confirmed to have been throwing rocks at the Guardsmen and there are strong and credible reports they fired shots that the Guardsmen right before they returned fire in self defense. Now, was the return fire poorly disciplined and aimed? Yes. But when you are an angry mob out destroying property and setting fires, and then you attack the people sent to stop you, those people have no obligation to just sit and be attacked, and have every right to exercise their god-given right to self defense. Revisionist history likes to portray the National Guard as the agressors at Kent State. In reality the rioting mob were the agressors, they just bit off more than they could chew. OK. Point taken, and I agree with your perspective. Bad Example on my part. But there are many more examples on this board that drive my point home. BTW...LONGtime lurker. Just recently started posting more. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: People whooping it up over the photo of people killed at Kent State- what if that had been a gathering of anti-NFA activists instead of hippies? Would you feel the same way? Constitutionally, they are afforded the same rights. Bad example. The protesters at Kent State were rioting, damaging and destroying private and public property, were confirmed to have been throwing rocks at the Guardsmen and there are strong and credible reports they fired shots that the Guardsmen right before they returned fire in self defense. Now, was the return fire poorly disciplined and aimed? Yes. But when you are an angry mob out destroying property and setting fires, and then you attack the people sent to stop you, those people have no obligation to just sit and be attacked, and have every right to exercise their god-given right to self defense. Revisionist history likes to portray the National Guard as the agressors at Kent State. In reality the rioting mob were the agressors, they just bit off more than they could chew. OK. Point taken, and I agree with your perspective. Bad Example on my part. But there are many more examples on this board that drive my point home. BTW...LONGtime lurker. Just recently started posting more. Replace Kent State with the Bonus Army, you'll be good to go again. |
|
Quoted:
OP, the First Amendment isn't about people only being able to express opinions that you agree with. The first amendment is not even relevant to this discussion, or to the OP's point. "Congress shall make no law..." He didn't say that people who say things he disagrees with should be thrown in jail, he was disagreeing with their sentiment, and suggesting that they were inconsistent with the beliefs that those people otherwise would tend to espouse. |
|
Quoted:
Your examples may be valid if you were arguing that people should be NICE to one another but I don't see that as your main point. Just because we believe in others' rights to the Constitution doesn't mean we have to cheer their causes or their actions. I'm arguing that some DO NOT believe in other's rights to the Constitution. I think that if we expect to have others believe in our rights to own guns, we should not disregard other's Constitutional rights in situations that we may find distasteful. Many find gun ownership to be distasteful, but it is still our right. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
OP, the First Amendment isn't about people only being able to express opinions that you agree with. The first amendment is not even relevant to this discussion, or to the OP's point. "Congress shall make no law..." He didn't say that people who say things he disagrees with should be thrown in jail, he was disagreeing with their sentiment, and suggesting that they were inconsistent with the beliefs that those people otherwise would tend to espouse. Precisely. |
|
Quoted:
Replace Kent State with the Bonus Army, you'll be good to go again.
Are arfcommers calling out the Bonus Army? Missed that one!  Much, much revisionist history here and among conservatives about the Bonus Army just like there is among hippies about Kent State. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
People whooping it up over the photo of people killed at Kent State- what if that had been a gathering of anti-NFA activists instead of hippies? Would you feel the same way? Constitutionally, they are afforded the same rights. Bad example. The protesters at Kent State were rioting, damaging and destroying private and public property, were confirmed to have been throwing rocks at the Guardsmen and there are strong and credible reports they fired shots that the Guardsmen right before they returned fire in self defense. Now, was the return fire poorly disciplined and aimed? Yes. But when you are an angry mob out destroying property and setting fires, and then you attack the people sent to stop you, those people have no obligation to just sit and be attacked, and have every right to exercise their god-given right to self defense. Revisionist history likes to portray the National Guard as the agressors at Kent State. In reality the rioting mob were the agressors, they just bit off more than they could chew. A friend of mine's father was a Ohio trooper who was there that day. Your statement I highlighted is exactly his take on the events. |
|
Quoted:
Oh, is this another thread asking the members of arfcom where they can find another board because they hate things about arfcom?? well.. Bye. Not at all. I thought it might be an interesting discussion. In retrospect, I should not have used the term "ignorant" in my original post. I apologize. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
People whooping it up over the photo of people killed at Kent State- what if that had been a gathering of anti-NFA activists instead of hippies? Would you feel the same way? Constitutionally, they are afforded the same rights. Bad example. The protesters at Kent State were rioting, damaging and destroying private and public property, were confirmed to have been throwing rocks at the Guardsmen and there are strong and credible reports they fired shots that the Guardsmen right before they returned fire in self defense. Now, was the return fire poorly disciplined and aimed? Yes. But when you are an angry mob out destroying property and setting fires, and then you attack the people sent to stop you, those people have no obligation to just sit and be attacked, and have every right to exercise their god-given right to self defense. Revisionist history likes to portray the National Guard as the agressors at Kent State. In reality the rioting mob were the agressors, they just bit off more than they could chew. This.....My mother was there..in her words They got what they were after" |
|
I agree completely.
Doesn't matter what side of the fence you're on, democrat or republican, conservative or liberal... most people don't care about the freedoms of those with whom they can't identify, nor do they understand the importance of standing up for others rights in order to protect their own. That being said, I'd say the proportion of constitutionalist-minded people on this forum is much higher than the general population. But yeah... there's alot of hipocracy. People forget quickly. History repeats itself time & time again. Sad, but true. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is a forum that is ultimately rooted in exercising and enjoying the inalienable rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. I don't think anyone would argue that. With that in mind, Arfcom has been the final straw in convincing me that, regardless of who is at the helm of this nation, sitting in the oval office, the United States is doomed based on the ignorance and selfishness of its population. Lately I have seen MANY examples of people blatantly disregarding the Constitutional Rights of others with whom they may disagree or outright dislike. It is perfectly fine to disagree with or dislike (or even hate someone), provided you don't infringe upon their rights. There are a lot of posters on Arfcom that seem all to eager to do just that. Here are a few recent examples that come to mind: People whooping it up over the photo of people killed at Kent State- what if that had been a gathering of anti-NFA activists instead of hippies? Would you feel the same way? Constitutionally, they are afforded the same rights. Weren't they rioting, looting, and/or destroying property? Criminals don't carry much sentiment around here.apparently not the ones that were actually shot. They seem to have been the back stop for warning shots fired at the ones that were. People thrilled about police officers "tuning up" a suspect in the "Cops caught on Video" thread. Did you feel the same way about the actions of the police in the Long Island Airport/Firearms arrest thread? If not, why not? Did a personal bias come into play? Because a guy caught robbing a place deserves a tune up, a woman taking a picture doesn't deserve to be mocked, ridiculed, oogled, and held wrongfully.yeah, fuck due process. We don't need that intellectual pussy shit around here A few folks didn't seem to miffed that an attorney's home was "no-knocked" by the DEA while serving a completely wrong warrant over phantom drug money. What if you were "no-knocked" by the ATF because someone did some alchemistic algebra and decided that your two gun purchases this last month meant you were selling weapons to the Mexican cartels?
I disagree with the no-knock. ATF should be held accountable, they were faulty in their work. There are many, many other examples of this too. My point is, it's great to be opinionated, to believe in the way you live your life, and to advocate for societal change. That's all well and good. But I believe that many of us, despite belonging to a persecuted group (gun enthusiasts), are truly gleeful about Constitutional oversights and law enforcement overzealousness in the erroneous persecution of those whom we disagree with. In reality, we are a hair's breadth away from suffering this same persecution ourselves.
The Constitution is an umbrella. It covers us all, whether we are dirty long-haired hippies or retired Gunnery Sgts. You can't cherrypick, or else it will come back to haunt us. Fire away. I think most people here believe that when you step over to the wrong side of the law you incur harsh penalty, as such we don't really care that some low-life gets "taken around the block" but we do care about constitutional rights of people who are not breaking the law and are posing no threat to another persons self or property. I'm not sure you really understand how our criminal justice system works, and I'm not convinced you have any more understanding of the constitution or why it was written than Keith olberman. Have a nice day. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: People whooping it up over the photo of people killed at Kent State- what if that had been a gathering of anti-NFA activists instead of hippies? Would you feel the same way? Constitutionally, they are afforded the same rights. Bad example. The protesters at Kent State were rioting, damaging and destroying private and public property, were confirmed to have been throwing rocks at the Guardsmen and there are strong and credible reports they fired shots that the Guardsmen right before they returned fire in self defense. Now, was the return fire poorly disciplined and aimed? Yes. But when you are an angry mob out destroying property and setting fires, and then you attack the people sent to stop you, those people have no obligation to just sit and be attacked, and have every right to exercise their god-given right to self defense. Revisionist history likes to portray the National Guard as the agressors at Kent State. In reality the rioting mob were the agressors, they just bit off more than they could chew. OK. Point taken, and I agree with your perspective. Bad Example on my part. But there are many more examples on this board that drive my point home. BTW...LONGtime lurker. Just recently started posting more. Wasn't one or two of the dead not involved? I could be mistaken. I've never looked that deeply into the incident. I generally have no problem shooting rioters, either. I'm 100% with the OP on his premise, though. There are just as many here who want to do away with/ ignore/ step on parts of the constitution as there are in the DU or HCI. It's just a matter of which parts they want to ignore. I would even go so far as to say the statists here would do away with a greater % of the constitution than the DU folks. |
|
I agree the OP's observations are accurate. I disagree there is anything to correct or change about it though. AR15.com has a lot of members from all over, from different cultures, races, and religions. Naturally there will be different points of view. There are lots and lots and lots of flavors of gun owners and enthusiasts. Of which, any individual is only one. Keep in mind, as a forum, AR15.com allows voicing things that don't translate into real life as well too. Sure, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land that transcends everything else, but sometimes I like to gloat about someone doing something that while they have a _right_ to do it, is a stupid thing to do with obvious negative consequences. Sometimes people get screwed by the system, yeah, and I defend the ones I can. But most are out there an uninvolved with me, so there's nothing to do but observe and make snide comments. In in short, chill out a bit. It's the internet, it means nothing.
|
|
The constitution guarantees certain rights. What it doesn't guarantee is that if you behave in a stupid fashion while exercising those rights you won't win a stupid prize. Stupidity should be mocked, openly and out loud, it's one of the pressures society puts on stupid people to become smarter.
|
|
I couldn't agree more. There are quite a few people on here that are no better than those they supposedly hate.eta- the vast majority of people here are great,otherwise I wouldn't be here. It's fine for idiots to express their beliefs as long as anyone else is equally free to check them. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
You don't have the right to not be offended, Mr. 48 posts (or whomever you really are). Stop inventing rights from the constitution that aren't there.  Except that they are there. And he didn't say he was offended. And his post count has nothing to do with the validity of his argument. Just as your lack of team membership has nothing to do with the invalidity of yours. |