| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
eeyrjmr
n00b
Joined: 17 Nov 2003
Posts: 37
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 10:48 pm Post subject: My 2nd amendment exist to counter tyranny |
 |
|
Thats the usual argument isn't it?
and those vocally opposing restrictions on gun access take this stance.
Interesting, yet I don't see any from the NRA (or from here for that matter) walking upto Capitol Hill with their arm to protect their fellow Americans.
http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/04/someone-just-leaked-obamas-rules-for-ass
| Quote: |
[t]he 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration's most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the** September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never**been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.
[T]he confidential Justice Department 'white paper' introduces a more expansive definition of self-defense or imminent attack than described by Brennan or Holder in their public speeches. It refers, for example,to what it calls a 'broader concept of imminence' than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.
Instead, it says, an 'informed, high-level' official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been 'recently' involved in 'activities' posing a threat of a violent attack and 'there is' no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities' The memo does not define "recently" or "activities." |
So come on 2nd amendment gunnuts, put your gun where you mouth is and actually use the 2nd amendment OR just face up to the fact you are yellow and drop the charade so we can protect our children
_________________
-- No pixels were harmed in the making of this post -- |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16029
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why not get rid of all the amendments. After all, we don't need them. Heck, we ignore the constitution, so might as well do away with that too. lolcivilliberties.
Edited title to fix the SHOUTING.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.
In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1488
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
@OP: false dichotomy / false dilemma. <-- Might want to look that up and actually think about how it applies here. Note emphasis on "think".
Logic fail.
>/dev/null
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Off the Wall
