The left mocks your desire to protect....

[Missourian]

Here it is again:

The left (some but not all) mock YOUR right to defend yourself and your country from despotism...Claiming that it is somehow immoral to even consider that a government might become so corrupted that the people may be forced to take up arms to restore liberty...but in the next breath supports Palestinians who blow up buses filled with innocent woman and children, fire rockets indiscriminately into urban centers and shoot Israeli Olympians in cold blood in the name of "politics by other means".

I must assume that they misguidedly believe these deplorable actions are somehow justified by a misconception that Palestinians have exhausted all possible avenues to peaceful resolutions AND that at that point violent means are necessary.

But how can they believe that, but not believe that under the same circumstances in the United States, if the government became oppressive and if all possible possible peaceful means had been exhausted, that citizens should not have the ability to protect their rights by force as a last resort?



Can anyone rectify these two disparate positions ?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

...your right to defend yourself and your country from despotism...but in the next breath supports Palestinians who blow up buses filled with innocent woman and children, fire rockets indiscriminately into urban centers and shoot Israeli Olympians in cold blood in the name of "politics by other means" .

I have no explanation for this hypocrisy.

I'm guessing....tuning-in to FAUX Noise was your first mistake.​

 

[Missourian]

...your right to defend yourself and your country from despotism...but in the next breath supports Palestinians who blow up buses filled with innocent woman and children, fire rockets indiscriminately into urban centers and shoot Israeli Olympians in cold blood in the name of "politics by other means" .

I have no explanation for this hypocrisy.

I'm guessing....tuning-in to FAUX Noise was your first mistake.​

Another non-explanation non-refutation.

 

[Missourian]

Here it is again:

The left (some but not all) mock YOUR right to defend yourself and your country from despotism...Claiming that it is somehow immoral to even consider that a government might become so corrupted that the people may be forced to take up arms to restore liberty...but in the next breath supports Palestinians who blow up buses filled with innocent woman and children, fire rockets indiscriminately into urban centers and shoot Israeli Olympians in cold blood in the name of "politics by other means".

I must assume that they misguidedly believe these deplorable actions are somehow justified by a misconception that Palestinians have exhausted all possible avenues to peaceful resolutions AND that at that point violent means are necessary.

But how can they believe that, but not believe that under the same circumstances in the United States, if the government became oppressive and if all possible possible peaceful means had been exhausted, that citizens should not have the ability to protect their rights by force as a last resort?



Can anyone rectify these two disparate positions ?

Anyone?

 

[konradv]

...your right to defend yourself and your country from despotism...but in the next breath supports Palestinians who blow up buses filled with innocent woman and children, fire rockets indiscriminately into urban centers and shoot Israeli Olympians in cold blood in the name of "politics by other means" .

I have no explanation for this hypocrisy.

The premise of the OP is that people who blow up buses are being defended. That's not the case, IMO. I challenge you to provide us with examples where terrorism is being supported. You're the one being hypocritical by conflating the actions of true terrorists with the aspirations of a people for their own country. Both sides are being held hostage by their extremes. It's not in the interest of the U.S. to chose one or the other extreme. It's our duty to be fair mediators, but that becomes difficult when that course is construed as "supporting terrorists".

 

[Missourian]

...your right to defend yourself and your country from despotism...but in the next breath supports Palestinians who blow up buses filled with innocent woman and children, fire rockets indiscriminately into urban centers and shoot Israeli Olympians in cold blood in the name of "politics by other means" .

I have no explanation for this hypocrisy.

The premise of the OP is that people who blow up buses are being defended. That's not the case, IMO. I challenge you to provide us with examples where terrorism is being supported. You're the one being hypocritical by conflating the actions of true terrorists with the aspirations of a people for their own country. Both sides are being held hostage by their extremes. It's not in the interest of the U.S. to chose one or the other extreme. It's our duty to be fair mediators, but that becomes difficult when that course is construed as "supporting terrorists".

Hamas is a terrorist organization. The majority of Palestinians elected terrorists to lead Palestine.

Hamas controls Gaza, firing rockets into urban centers of Israel.

Gaza, the area Israel withdraw from as an act of good faith.

Supporting Palestine IS supporting terrorism.

Conversely, banning a certain type of firearm due to the actions of a miniscule minority of criminal uses, despite the overwhelming majority of law abiding semi-automatic rifle owners sounds like it fits more what you would like us to believe is the situation with the Palestinian Authority...that only a few bad actors are the terrorists and the rest of the Palestinians are law abiding and peaceful.

I could have bought that argument if the Palestinian people rejected the violent terrorist activities of Hamas...I cannot when the Palestinians ELECT HAMAS TO POWER.

Which leads us to a new disparity.

 

[Dreamy]

...your right to defend yourself and your country from despotism...but in the next breath supports Palestinians who blow up buses filled with innocent woman and children, fire rockets indiscriminately into urban centers and shoot Israeli Olympians in cold blood in the name of "politics by other means" .

I have no explanation for this hypocrisy.

It is kind of on the line of good racism, bad racism. Good sexism, bad sexism, good liar, bad liar.

Interesting and very revealing thread.

 

[Missourian]

No liberals are not like the op stated...another dumb comparison in order to whine about your guns.

Another example of a reply with no substance.

I didn't say ALL liberals...that brush is too broad. Some don't support gun control and some don't support terrorism...

Here it is again:

The left (some but not all) mock YOUR right to defend yourself and your country from despotism...

If you don't belong to that group...good for you.

Attempting to dismiss the comparison as "dumb" is nothing less than a failed marginalization tactic.

 

[Truthmatters]

...your right to defend yourself and your country from despotism...but in the next breath supports Palestinians who blow up buses filled with innocent woman and children, fire rockets indiscriminately into urban centers and shoot Israeli Olympians in cold blood in the name of "politics by other means" .

I have no explanation for this hypocrisy.

you dont want to understand your fellow Americans.

You only seek to demonize them so you cam feel GREAT about pointing your guns at youer fellow Americans and kill them for not agreeing with you.


Your side is now making up complete lies about sandyhook.

The result of your lies will have children who watched their fellow classmates be riddled with bullets and now for the rest of their lives will be hunted by your gun nuts for taking part in what they call a government conspiracy.



How do you sleep knowing you are causing them to live in fear for the rest of their lives so you can snuggle a gun at night?

 

[Missourian]

...your right to defend yourself and your country from despotism...but in the next breath supports Palestinians who blow up buses filled with innocent woman and children, fire rockets indiscriminately into urban centers and shoot Israeli Olympians in cold blood in the name of "politics by other means" .

I have no explanation for this hypocrisy.

you dont want to understand your fellow Americans.

You only seek to demonize them so you cam feel GREAT about pointing your guns at youer fellow Americans and kill them for not agreeing with you.


Your side is now making up complete lies about sandyhook.

The result of your lies will have children who watched their fellow classmates be riddled with bullets and now for the rest of their lives will be hunted by your gun nuts for taking part in what they call a government conspiracy.



How do you sleep knowing you are causing them to live in fear for the rest of their lives so you can snuggle a gun at night?

Dear Fool,

Do you see any lies about Sandy Hook in this thread?

Absolutely not.

Go to a thread that contains some lies about Sandy Hook and post this there...where it belongs.

Point me towards it, and I will join you in chastising them.

Thanks in advance,
The person not telling lies

 

[Dreamy]

The left mocks your desire to protect.... ...your right to defend yourself and your country from despotism...but in the next breath supports Palestinians who blow up buses filled with innocent woman and children, fire rockets indiscriminately into urban centers and shoot Israeli Olympians in cold blood in the name of "politics by other means" .

This is the OP for those appearing confused.

Help clarify if you can.

 

[Truthmatters]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAwtG_lfSk4]No Donny these men are cowards - YouTube[/ame]




you do not scaare us .


The scotus has said gun laws are perfectly constitutional.


You have NO legal leg to stand on

 

[Missourian]

you do not scaare us .


The scotus has said gun laws are perfectly constitutional.


You have NO legal leg to stand on

Another non-explanation non-refutation.

I'm not trying to scare you. I haven't said anything that should scare you.

Please, I know it's difficult, but try to stay on topic...you can do it.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

This thread seems to have struck a nerve with Lahkota.

Truth hurts

 

[Truthmatters]

you do not scaare us .


The scotus has said gun laws are perfectly constitutional.


You have NO legal leg to stand on

Another non-explanation non-refutation.

I'm not trying to scare you. I haven't said anything that should scare you.

Please, I know it's difficult, but try to stay on topic...you can do it.

look you and your "second amendment remedies" to NOT winnning elections or losing in the SCOTUS decisions doesnt make you right.


You just try pointing that gun at your fellow Americans and see how soon your dead

 

[Truthmatters]

You dont scare anyone folks.

your gig is UP

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

You dont scare anyone folks.

your gig is UP

A constitutional right =/= a gig


You are a moron

 

[Dreamy]

I wish anyone besides TM would actually bring something of value to the thread to actually explain what appears to be a clear case of hypocrisy from the left.

 

[Missourian]

you do not scaare us .


The scotus has said gun laws are perfectly constitutional.


You have NO legal leg to stand on

Another non-explanation non-refutation.

I'm not trying to scare you. I haven't said anything that should scare you.

Please, I know it's difficult, but try to stay on topic...you can do it.

look you and your "second amendment remedies" to NOT winnning elections or losing in the SCOTUS decisions doesnt make you right.


You just try pointing that gun at your fellow Americans and see how soon your dead

You're not trying hard enough.

As a good faith gesture, I will answer this third off topic reply.

In return, please take a stab at my OP instead of repeatedly attempting to derail my thread.

I don't want to point a gun at anyone, ever, as long as I live.

I may someday be FORCED to do so to defend myself, my loved ones or even a complete stranger like you from death or grievous injury.

And in my minds eye, even under those circumstances, I do not relish the thought of being responsible for the death of another human being, even if it was self defense or the protection of an innocent person.

That's still someones child, and I will be the instrument that inflicts that pain on their innocent family and friends.

I've given this scenario much deliberation...I carry a firearm...and before that I was a soldier during the Cold-War who could have been called upon to kill to defend my country.

FTR I will die a happy man if I am never ever put in a position that I am forced to use a firearm against another human being.

So why do oppose a ban on Semi-automatic rifles?

Because I understand the axiom "Power Corrupts".

As the government becomes more and more powerful and centralized, the more corrupt it becomes.

Do I think it is a certainty that our government will become oppressive?

Not at all.

But I do see the POSSIBILITY that it could, someday in the future.

And to forestall that possibility, the founders gave us an uninfringable amendment, one that keeps, if not an equal power, a power that is formidable, to keep that oppressive nature of government in check...and every attempt to chip away that right lessens it's effectiveness...maybe someday to the point that a future corrupt government believes it is a manageable power.

 

[Missourian]

Now that the derailment portion of the thread has ended, back to our regularly scheduled OP.


Here it is again:

The left (some but not all) mock YOUR right to defend yourself and your country from despotism...Claiming that it is somehow immoral to even consider that a government might become so corrupted that the people may be forced to take up arms to restore liberty...but in the next breath supports Palestinians who blow up buses filled with innocent woman and children, fire rockets indiscriminately into urban centers and shoot Israeli Olympians in cold blood in the name of "politics by other means".

I must assume that they misguidedly believe these deplorable actions are somehow justified by a misconception that Palestinians have exhausted all possible avenues to peaceful resolutions AND that at that point violent means are necessary.

But how can they believe that, but not believe that under the same circumstances in the United States, if the government became oppressive and if all possible possible peaceful means had been exhausted, that citizens should not have the ability to protect their rights by force as a last resort?



Can anyone rectify these two disparate positions ?


I have some work to do, but I'll be back tonight to discuss any replies.