...we use to have, and how they were forbidden to be used near security gates at airports?

And how a bunch of you guys were so upset?

Well, lookee here:

[size=4]Spain arrests al-Qaida suspects with videos of U.S. monuments including Golden Gate Bridge[/size=4]
By CIARAN GILES Associated Press Writer
Published 10:40 a.m. PDT Tuesday, July 16, 2002

MADRID, Spain (AP) - Spanish police arrested three Syrians on Tuesday suspected of being al-Qaida members, including one who had videos of the World Trade Center and monuments in the United States including the Golden Gate Bridge.

Two of the suspects were arrested in Madrid and the other in the eastern town of Castellon, the Interior Ministry said in a statement. They were identified as Ghasoub Al-Abrash Ghalyoun, Abdalrahman Alarnaot Abu-Aljer and Mohamen Khair Al Saqq. Ghalyoun and Abu-Aljer had Spanish nationality, police said.

The ministry statement said Ghalyoun belonged to the radical Muslim Brotherhood and had been arrested in Spain in April but later released.

[b]At the time of his first arrest, police confiscated many videos including five shot by Ghalyoun during a trip to the United States in 1997.[/b]

[b]"The form and type of recording go beyond touristic curiosity as shown by two of the tapes, which are entirely of different angles from different distances of the Twin Towers in New York," the statement said.[/b]

It added that there were similar recordings of New York's Statue of Liberty, the Brooklyn Bridge, San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge, the Sears tower in Chicago, Disneyland and Universal studios in California.

Other videos were extremely violent and showed Islamic fighters training in camps and during combat scenes in Chechnya, the statement said.

An FBI task force is working with FBI operatives and local law enforcement in Spain to locate and capture suspected terrorists, a U.S. law enforcement official said. Some of the people the task force is looking to locate are men who might be tied to terrorists and have traveled to the United States in recent years.

It was not immediately clear why Ghalyoun was released in April or re-arrested Tuesday.

The arrests were ordered by Judge Baltasar Garzon as part of an operation begun last year with the detention of more than a dozen people across the country between November and April. The judge has accused those arrested then of recruiting members for al-Qaida, financing the group and taking part in preparations for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States.

Spanish authorities are trying to figure out what Mohamed Atta, the Sept. 11 ringleader, was doing during two trips to Spain months before the attacks.

See article at:[url]http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/story/3597804p-4623870c.html[/url]

Hmmm, maybe Atta was just looking at some harmless tapes of the World Trade Center, huh?

Eric The(WeNeedAWaitingPeriodOnVideocameras)Hun[>]:)]

Do you think they'll be coming to my house to get me because of those picture of the Golden Gate?  Or, some old pictures I took from my office window in the former World Trade Center?  Huh, Huh?

Actually, this is a toughie.  One could go on a first amendment rant, but what is more useful to tactical planning than some good photos?  

MAy have to have some limits, but I hate to see it happen, because we all know it will get out of hand.

I simply don't see it getting out of hand.

If it does, then the problem can be addressed then.

Eric The(Constitutional)Hun[>]:)]

Remember all of those arguments made against the Vietnam War Hero John McCain and others who want gun shows banned?

All of those complaints now lookee here:

[url=www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/metro/0702/15gunshow.html#morning]Boy, 13, dies after being shot in head at gun show[/url]

The 13-year-old Alabama boy accidentally shot in the face at a Gwinnett gun show Sunday died at 12:10 p.m. today, hospital officials said.

A single bullet struck Stephen Bray King in his right eye and lodged in his brain just after noon Sunday, two hours into the Eastman Gun Show.

The boy's father, Anthony Grant, 38, said his son was standing on his left side and facing a vendor's counter when the gun was fired.

It was unclear how the shooting happened or whose gun, a .38-caliber revolver, was involved. Police are still investigating the incident to determine whether charges will be filed, Gwinnett County police spokesman Ray Dunlap said.

Stephen was taken to Scottish Rite Children's Hospital in Atlanta, where he underwent surgery.

He was a rising freshman at Prattville High School in Prattville near Montgomery.

[url]www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=132969[/url]

" In Asheville (NC,) at a show 3 women bragged about the business they had done that morning. Those women sold eight guns in 30 minutes and are not required by law to ask for a purchase permit."

" Theres no background check for individual sales of shotguns and rifles and Captain Pummell thinks thats a problem."

[url=www.usmayors.org/USCM/us_mayor_newspaper/documents/02_21_00/friend_article.htm]Friend of Columbine Killers Bought Weapons at Gun Show Without Background Check[/url]

"Robyn Anderson, a friend of the two students responsible for the killings at Columbine High School on April 20, 1999, assisted them in buying three of the four weapons used in the massacre from different sellers at the Tanner gun show outside of Denver."

Cars, guns, planes, baseball bats, steak knives, knitting needles...people have been killed with all these things...and they were all sold without a background check or purchase permit. Its a crazy world, just try to be ready.
Shit happens Imbrog.

Hmmm, [b]Imbroglio[/b], you'll have to help all of us out with your post.

Since the [b]RKBA[/b] contemplates that arms will be freely available for sale, trade, and purchase by the citizenry, just how does the incident of an accidental or negligent discharge at a gun show in any way equate with the [b]RKMV[/b]?

By the way, that's the 'Right to Keep and Make Videos' in case you were wondering, you know that cherished right that is protected under the, um, the, er, well, one of those splendid amendments I am certain, otherwise you folks wouldn't be making asses out of yourselves pizzing, bitching, and moaning over the prohibition of using videocameras at airports, military bases, public buildings, etc.

Eric The(AtLeastIHopeSo)Hun[>]:)]

Yeah, the same way those gun control laws haven't gotten out of hand?  We've addressed THOSE quite well after their enactment, haven't we?

Post from Zak -

Patience, [b]Zak[/b], patience!

The DEMOS controlled Congress for 40 years, from 1955 to 1995, during which time all these gun laws were passed.

The GOP regained control of Congress only in 1995, and there hasn't been one single gun control measure passed since then!

But what about repealing some of the ones that the DEMOs had passed?

Well, yes, the GOP Congress was well on its way to repealing the AWB in the Sping of 1995, when some pencil-necked geek, obstensibly one on [u]our[/u] side, pulled off the incredibly horrific act of murdering 178 of our fellow citizens!

The GOP, and if I remember correctly, most of us were running for the tall grass!

So much for repeal.

Now we have a chance to drive a stake in the heart of the AWB in 2002 with the election of a GOP Congressional majority in [u]both[/u] Houses!

Well, [b]Zak[/b], are you with me buddy!!??

Let, me guess! You're not a Republican are you?[:D]

Eric The()Hun[>]:)]

Got one sarcastic, and one serious question on this:

1) Who controlled the congress in 1934? (serious--I honestly don't know the answer to this question)

2) So we only have to wait forty years to recover our first amendment rights? (sarcastic)

Hun, my post wasn't about the GOP's record on gun control, but rather the fact that rights surrendered are seldom recovered... at least without bloodshed.

Now we have a chance to drive a stake in the heart of the AWB in 2002 with the election of a GOP Congressional majority in [u]both[/u] Houses

Let, me guess! You're not a Republican are you?[:D]

View Quote

First off, nope, I'm not a Republican.  On the other hand, my congressional votes this year ARE currently looking solidly in the (R) column, unless Lamar Alexander wins the primary.  Everything I've read of Ed Bryant is worth voting for though, and if he makes it through the primary, he's got my vote.

Bill Jenkins isn't perfect, but I can vote for him with a clear consience.

Governor, I'm not so sure--I don't know enough about the candidates yet, and none of them have returned my email.

As I've said in other threads, I've got NO problem voting for a republican I can SUPPORT (nor a democrat, for that matter) but I'm done voting "lesser of the two evils."  This means GWB is gone in '04, btw.

You repubs keep your party members in line, and we won't have a problem. [:D]

(edited because I can't spell.)

That would be the 9th Amendment for Federal legislation.

For state legislation, it would be under the right to own and use property clauses(most states have them in their constitutions. The right to own and use property is one of the most cherished rights of them all. Without it, there is no freedom. Of course you can't use property to violate the live, liberty, or property of others, but I do not see how videos THEMSELVES to that. It may make it easier to do it, but not by themselves. One they can regulate property in this way(which they alredy do), we cease to be free(which is true today)

Post from Zak -

If you're asking about the National Firearms Act of 1934, it was proposed by FDR (a DEMO), and approved by a House controlled by DEMOs(313 DEMOS - 117 GOP - 5 Ind), and a Senate that was also controlled by DEMOs (59 - 36).

Is that what you wanted to hear? Maybe, maybe not!

How about 1968? You know the year that Congress passed the Gun Control Act! That law was proposed by LBJ (s DEMO) and approved by a House controlled by DEMOs (248 - 187), and a Senate that was also controlled by DEMOs (64 - 36).

How about the AWB of 1994? That law was proposed by Clinton (a DEMO, remember?) and approved by a House controlled by DEMOs (258 - 176), and a Senate that was also controlled by DEMOs (57 - 43).

Even so the AWB passed in the House by a vote of 216 - 214.

Now here's some homework for [u]you[/u]! Tell us how many of the 216 were DEMOs and how many of the 214 were GOP!

That alone should open your eyes![:D]


If some of us continue to refuse to see that the Number 1 supporters of Gun Rights are the NRA and the Republican Party, and pronounce 'a plague on both your houses', then it may be considerably longer than that!

It's hard for the rest of us to concentrate with all the moaning and bitching going on our own side!

Why not just 'vote correctly' and avoid the bloodshed altogether?

I'm getting too old to be dragging my butt to the barricades! [:D]

Eric The(Elder)Hun[>]:)]

Post from libertyof76 -

If your position is that the 9th Amendment prohibits Congress from making laws that prohibit taking pictures or making videos of areas that are declared to be vital to US security, then you are flat ass wrong!

So we should permit Al Qaeda operatives to tour our military facilities at will, and to take photos and videos at their whim?

Son, if that's your idea of what the 9th Amendment compels, then your idea is rubbish!

That would indeed not be a Constitution, but a suicide pact!

Eric The(GetReal)Hun[>]:)]

I've done this homework before, and have posted such on this very same board (in an AW ban "sunset" topic.)  I don't have the figured at my fingertips right this second (I'm at work taking a break, and don't have time to dig through Thomas) but IIRC, most democrats voted for it, most republicans voted against it.  Here's [b]YOUR[/b] homework.  Take a look at the voting record on the amendment that put the AW/hicap bans in the "Omnibus Crime Control Act" to begin with.  That should open YOUR eyes.



I grudgingly support the NRA, but I'm not delusional enough to believe that they are the "number 1 SUPPORTERS" of gun rights--the number one LOBBY, maybe, but they've got more than your RKBA at heart.  Have you read their crowing in the latest month's magazine?  About how the justice department's outlook on the 2nd amendment has changed?  Alot of praise there, but a COMPLETE LACK OF MENTION of the fact that those same briefs ask the supreme court to NOT hear Emerson or Haney.

[b]Grudgingly?[/b] What a hero!

In March 1996, the House voted to repeal the assault weapon ban. The National Rifle Association (NRA), the main gun lobby, had been lobbying to reverse the ban ever since Congress passed it in 1994. Its first mission was getting rid of a Democratic-controlled Congress.

The NRA spent almost 80 percent of its PAC money on Republican candidates in the 1994 elections. [b]Tom King, a Democratic political strategist, called the NRA a "wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party" and said the association coordinated its campaign activities with the Republicans[/b].

[b]After the elections, President Clinton told a reporter that "the NRA is the reason the Republicans control the House."[/b] The NRA fought very hard to win a Republican majority, and the gun lobby was counting on newly-elected representatives not forgetting who helped them along the way.

When the newly controlled Republican Congress convened in January 1995, Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and Rep. Bill Paxon (R-N.Y.) and other lawmakers met with NRA officials to discuss their plans. Several days later Newt Gingrich wrote to Tanya Metaksa, who runs the association’s Political Action Committee: "What we are going to have is a partnership of strengthening laws against the criminal misuse of firearms, which everyone agrees is the real problem issue, and eliminating harassment of law-abiding gun owners who are not the problem." Although the Senate never voted on the assault weapon ban repeal, that the House did at all is testament to the NRA’s power.

How's them apples, [b]Zak[/b]?

I'd say that not voting for Republicans is the greatest mistake that gun owners can make nowadays!

I'd also say that not supporting the NRA is the second greatest mistake that gun owners can makes nowadays.

Eric The(GOP&NRALifeMember)Hun[>]:)]

[b]I'd[/b] say that voting for [b]ANY[/b] candidate based strictly on party affiliation is the greatest mistake an otherwise rational person could make ANY day.



I said I support them, albiet grudgingly.  I'm even on the "easy pay life" program, and they'll keep getting my money as long as they keep defending my right to keep and bear arms.

I'll admit they TALK a good game, but let me ask you a question:  When Heston gets up in front of a room full of people and says "From my cold, dead hands" how come it's a 200 year old flintlock in his hand, and not one of a particular class of firearms (AR, AK, etc) that's actually under attack?

Post from Zak -

Really? Do you really think that voting for the candidate and not the party makes any sort of difference at all? Really?

Let's say you live in the 16th Congressional District in Michigan and the fellow running in your district is John Dingell.

Now John Dingell is in his 24th term as a Democrat lawmaker, having first been elected in 1955.

He is also a member of the Board of Directors of the NRA.

How does he vote on the RKBA? Here a list of bad things he's done, according to the Sarah Brady Group:

*Voted against the Brady Bill to require a five-day waiting period before purchase of a handgun to allow for a background check of the purchaser. (H.R. 1025, Vote 564, 11/10/93)

*Worked to weaken federal firearm laws. Under the guise of "closing the gun show loophole," Dingell opposed comprehensive efforts to close the gun show loophole and he sought to undermine law enforcement efforts by reducing the amount of time they have to conduct background checks. (See additional details below.) (H.R. 2122, Vote 234, 6/17/99)

*Opposed the Assault Weapons Ban. Even though the measure was supported by law enforcement across the country, he voted against the federal Assault Weapons Ban which makes it unlawful to transfer, sell, or possess any of 19 types of assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices. He called the legislation "offensive" and "obnoxious." (H.R. 4296, Vote 156, 5/5/94; Chicago Tribune, 8/23/94)

*Voted to repeal the Assault Weapons Ban. When Congress considered repealing the Assault Weapons Ban, he turned his back on law enforcement once again and toed the gun lobby line with a vote in favor of repealing this critical law. (H.R.125, Vote 92, 3/22/96)

*He has called our dedicated federal law enforcement officers at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms "a jack-booted group of fascists." (Quoted by NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre in Guns, Crime and Freedom)

Very good guy right? Well maybe, maybe not.

He is also sponsoring, along with Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) (You remember her, she's the widow of one of Colin Ferguson's victims aboard the Long Island Railroad care, who was elected to the House based upon her gun control ideas), legislation that will, well, let me just pass along this press release:

Washington, D.C. – Congressman John D. Dingell (D-MI) today unveiled legislation (H.R. 4757) with Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The legislation will for the first time require states and federal agencies to provide the FBI with all relevant records necessary to conduct criminal background checks, including mental health records. The bill establishes a nationwide grant program to state law enforcement agencies and state courts to automate and transmit records for inclusion in the federal instant background check database.

- continued -

[u]Why[/u] is he co-sponsoring gun control legislation along with one of the most radical anti-gun members of Congress?

Well, let Sarah Brady herself tell you why:

Washington, DC - The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence united with the Million Mom March, today praised Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) for introducing legislation to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) by requiring states to provide the FBI with all relevant records necessary to conduct criminal background checks, including mental health records.

"Once again, we applaud Carolyn McCarthy for proposing concrete steps to make America safer," said Michael D. Barnes, President of Brady Campaign. "We know that background checks work when it comes to keeping guns away from criminals, terrorists and other prohibited purchasers. Expanding the scope of the NICS will greatly enhance the effectiveness of the system and, if enacted, this measure would certainly result in saved lives."

The Brady Campaign is endorsing H.R. 4757, which would also establish a nationwide grant program to state law enforcement agencies and state courts to automate and transmit records for inclusion in the federal instant background check database.

[b]Mr. Barnes expressed some skepticism, however, at Congressman John Dingell's (D-MI) sudden interest in strengthening a so-called gun control measure. Dingell is a co-sponsor of H.R. 4757.[/b]

"Given Dingell's extreme record against sensible gun laws, including voting against both the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban, one has to be suspicious of his motives," said Barnes. "Is this sudden change of heart because Congressional re-districting has Mr. Dingell facing Congresswoman Lynn Rivers -- a supporter of common-sense gun policy -- in a competitive primary? Is this merely a thinly-veiled attempt by Dingell to appear moderate in a new district where polls indicate that the voters value sensible gun laws?

"Michigan voters beware: consistent action speaks louder than words. John Dingell has repeatedly opposed virtually every effort to strengthen our nation's gun laws. If Dingell is sincere in his support for this measure, then he should commit to, and work for, other strong gun violence prevention measures from this point forward."

From article at:[url]http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/alerts/reader/0,2061,551326,00.html[/url]

Hmmm, is this correct? Is John trying to pull his 'dingells' out of the fire? Sure looks that way! He simply wants to be reelected and continue to earn his exorbitant pension!

But the point is that even should you decide to vote for Mr. Dingell for his sterling rep as a champion of the RKBA, be forewarded that Mr. Dingell will have no trouble whatsoever in voting for Richard Gephardt (D-MO) as Speaker of the House, should the DEMOs take the House by a narrow margin.

Why? Because John Dingell is more loyal to his party than he is to this country!

He's a friggin democrat f'rcryingoutloud!

So, yes, rational people would sometimes choose to vote for a party rather than the man!

If I lived in the 16th District of Michigan, I would vote for Dingell in the Primary and whoever his GOP opponent was in the General Election!

Do you understand why?

Eric The(Reasonabe)Hun[>]:)]

Why not? We do it for the Russians and the Chinese. That was a thinly veiled attempt at sarcasm for the intellectually challenged out there.

So Hun--you're basically saying you'd vote for an anti-gun republican over a pro-gun democrat and think you were doing the best thing for RKBA?

If he decides to run and wins his primary, will you happily suggest to Arizonans that they vote for John McCain?

(In hindsight) do you think Jim Jeffords was a good choice for that Vermont senate seat?

I believe that the Tenth amendment says something to the effect of "The enumeration of certain rights in these amendments shall not be construed to mean that there are not other rights"

Thus is isn't much of a stretch at all to presume that the founding fathers would support the right to keep and make videos today, considering that there were no videos when they wrote the constitution. Or that they would even think that someone would want to do something as silly as prohibiting making videos of public places.

I probably have photos of a couple of national monuments lying around. Let's see... I have some stamps with pictures of the Statue of Liberty on them! They're right next to my computer! I can probably find others if I look around. Mabye they should arrest me as a terrorist!

As others have said, it is many times harder to get back anything from the government then it is for the government to take it away in the first place. It would also be a serious mistake to assume that a representative supported RKBA or other fundamental rights because he is running as a Republican. Witness Bush's statements that the AW ban is a good idea. Not to mention signing CFR, among other things. Does one Democrat's (reluctant?) reversal on RKBA mean that no Democrats believe in RKBA?

While we're at it, would it be so terrible to let the people get a better look at what the millitary is doing? It's not like american citizens are being held in secret without trial or anything, right? (Cough alleged "dirty bomb" guy Cough) I'm not saying we should compromise operations that have a legitimate reason to be secret, but if there isn't a good reason to keep it secret other then "The sheeple would panic!", then we have a right to know. And mabye even videotape.

Post from Zak -

If the anti-gun Republican was pledged to support the Republican leadership in voting for Speaker of the House, and the DemocRat was pledged to support Richard Gephardt (D-MO) for Speaker of the House - I'd vote for the anti-gun Republican in a heartbeat.

If you are familiar with how things are done in Washington DC, if you control the machinery, you control the country. The GOP Speaker of the House would keep the renewal of the AWB from even coming to the House Floor - is that something that a lone out-of-the-majority pro-gun DemocRat could do? [b]Nope![/b]

And the Speaker and his leadership group will pick the Chairmen of all of the committees in the House, and the Senate Leader will pick all the Chairmen of the committees in the Senate.

If the GOP controls the House and Senate, then Rep. John D. Dingell (D-MO), as a supporter of the RKBA, [u]should[/u] be satisfied. Satisfied that our rights will not be further eroded by the Speakership of Richard Gephardt.

If he's not satisfied, then he is no lover of the RKBA.

[b]This is politics, it is hardball, and at times it ain't pretty![/b]

But it damn sure beats the Hell outta a Civil War over these issues, doesn't it?

I was kinda hoping the Lord would call his faithful servant, John 'The Manchurian Candidate' McCain, home before the next election, but who knows?

But if the GOP can't seem to find their ballz in a sack, don't run anyone of integrity in opposition to this dredful piece of dreck, and John Lisping McCain winds up being the GOP's candidate in the next Senatorial Election for his seat, then, yes, I would urge the folks in Arizona to support him, provided he pledged to support the party's leadership in the Senate!

In [u]hindsight[/u]? Everything is 20-20 in hindsight. But someone should have asked 'Jumping Jim' Jeffords for a pledge to support the GOP leadership.

If he failed to give it to them, run someone against him in the primaries, and if that fails, then sit on the sidelines and let him lose on his own.

Trust me, his DemocRat opponent would be no more pro-gun than he was.

Eric The(RepublicanStalwart)Hun[>]:)]

Post from mace -

Really?  Are you familiar with the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798?

That is how some of the Founding Fathers viewed the way to react to wars in other parts of the world encroaching upon the United States.

Seems rather heavy-handed by today's standards, do they not?

I suggest we all do a little reading in this area before we come to some sort of conclusion about what the Founding Fathers would or would not have supported.

Eric The(Historical)Hun[>]:)]

ETH,

You are, in my never-to-be-humble opinion, by far and away, the most learned man on this board.

I don't know where you come up with all your data, quotes, stats, etc., but JESUS, you're a friggin' encyclopedia, bible, and almanac on legs!

I salute thee, sir! [beer]

Thank you, [b]USNA91[/b], for your kind words on my behalf!

But this is a tough audience, and one that you cannot afford to fall flat on your face in front of, so I try to do my homework and hold my breath!

And wait for the other shoe to drop![:D]

If I can bring some small amount of knowledge to some folks, and make others rethink their positions, it is enough.

I cannot begin to tell all of y'all what y'all have also brought to me in the way of info, intel, and differing viewpoints!

And we are all the richer for it, indeed!

Eric The(Enlightened)Hun[>]:)]

The phrase "yellow dog" springs immediately to mind, but at least you had the guts to finally admit it.



Is this the same hun that likes to say (as an excuse for people to vote solidly republican) that the 1994 AW ban passed by ONE vote?  

Let me ask you a question:  What happens if (actually, when, as this type of thing is cyclical) the other 49 states don't go along with your master plan and elect democratic majorities anyway?  Then those bills DO get the floor, and folks like you have stacked the deck against us--it'll feel really nice to have helped put the nail in the coffin, I bet.



Hoping someone will die before the next election isn't exactly a viable political strategy--just ask South Carolina democrats, they've been trying that same tactic for decades.



Let me ask you another question:  Do you REALLY expect someone who can't keep an oath to "support, protect, and defend the constitution of the united states" to keep a "pledge" to support the leadership of their PARTY?  Gimme a BREAK!



That's just SAD.  Aren't you one of those "don't vote for a third party, you'll throw your vote away!" types?  So your advice is to NOT VOTE if you don't like the republican?

Sorry, hun, but attitudes like this are exactly why I'm not a republican--the idea that somehow the party is more important than the country.

[b]Zak[/b], edit your post with the 'quotes' at the right places and I will answer it.

[u]Otherwise[/u] it will be too confusing!

Eric The(BoyHaveYouMisunderstoodMyThoughts)Hun[>]:)]

Spain arrests al-Qaida suspects with videos of U.S. monuments including Golden Gate Bridge

[beer] nuff said!

It's amazing what one extra quote at the top will do. [:D]

It's fixed hun, waiting for your response...

The day when "an electable candidate" comes along will never come if nobody votes for 'em..

Unfortunately, Washington will never change unless we actually try to effect change.  It's pretty circular logic, in the end, and voting solidly republican will only make the situation worse--they'll STILL take your rights, they'll just do it slower.



THAT, on the other hand, is a perfectly good idea.

Getting back to the original post of this thread, I guess that magazines and catalogs will have to be investigated as terrorists since they have pictures of these locations on their covers.

Hey Hun, still waiting for your response.

BTW, considering that most people wrongly blame (or praise) the president (and his party) for the rise and fall of the stock market, I'm becoming more and more convinced that the republicans are going to get SPANKED at the polls this year.

Post from Zak -

So sorry. [b]Zak[/b], but my muse has left me this evening, and the topic is much too stale to resurrect now.[:D]

You know my position - Politics is a high stakes poker game with the future of our country on the table.

You play as if you must win, because, in truth, you MUST win. If you don't, some schlub will be schtupping your granddaughter with the acquiescence of the State, while you, powerless and disarmed, will be watching sadly in the wings, dreaming of 'what might have been' and clinching your fists in frustrated and mindless fury.

And leave all the pinhead platitudes in the drawer at your desk at school.

[b]You are not going to be faced with a choice between some George Washington and some Benedict Arnold, you will at best be left with a choice between an Alexander Hamilton and an Aaron Burr.[/b]

Better get your politics down right, Son, lest you add to this nation's, and your own, woes.

Eric The(Realistic)Hun[>]:)]