PDA

View Full Version : Enemies within the Ranks of Conservatives


boxcar
09-20-2010, 01:29 PM
We conservatives might not have any idea of how steep the uphill battle will be in fighting the elitists on both sides of the aisle. If the following is true about Krauthammer, my respect for him will not only have declined sharply, but now I'll be wondering how many other covert progressives are out there masquerading as conservatives.

Mr. Krauthammer knows all about how Incrementalism works in a society, too, doesn't he?

Boxcar

Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a
modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed by sister democracies
such as Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist
ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly
cannot be done radically. It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It
might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today.
Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic – purely symbolic
– move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but
to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their
ultimate confiscation.

- Charles Krauthammer,The Washington Post, Friday, April 5, 1996, page
A19 op-ed piece entitled “Disarm The Citizenry”

https://twg2a.wordpress.com/2010/03/25/charles-krauthammer-on-disarmament/

Steve 'StatMan'
09-20-2010, 01:41 PM
That was 14 years ago. Also, it takes this paragraph in isolation. I'd rather read the whole piece, and see how he was approaching the subject - was he advocating taking guns away from the citizens, or writing about how one would go about that (whether he was pro, con, or neutral.)

GameTheory
09-20-2010, 01:42 PM
He wrote that about a decade & a half ago. He might not even agree with it anymore...

boxcar
09-20-2010, 02:08 PM
He wrote that about a decade & a half ago. He might not even agree with it anymore...

But he is completely on board with distancing himself from O'Donnell and implicitly expressing disdain for all those who voted for her. Why in the world would he rather support a known, proven RINO? A guy who would vote with the Dems on virtually every issue that would come down the 'pike? Where are Krauthammer's principles? Lack of principles is something we'd fully expect from most liberals -- not a real conservative.

It seems to me that his stand on O'Donnell and his support for a huge RINO would be consistent with that old piece. Nothing contradictory there. In fact, maybe those words of ole would help explain his current attitude on the Delaware election outcome.

Boxcar

ArlJim78
09-20-2010, 02:35 PM
I think the general point of the thread is well taken, that we probably have no idea how uphill the battle will be. We've kicked around the concept that the country is divided up into the ruling class and the country class. As the country class starts to kick up its heels and toss out members of the ruling class from power, expect a giant blowback from the ruling class, in fact we're already seeing it. This means that some people formerly thought to be conservatives will be flushed out and discovered that their true allegiance is to the ruling class.

I hope the quote from Krauthammer is out of context, because I tend to really like the guy despite some of his recent comments regarding Delaware.

bigmack
09-20-2010, 02:57 PM
Here's the complete op/ed piece from CK back in '96:
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19960408&slug=2323082

boxcar
09-20-2010, 03:06 PM
I think the general point of the thread is well taken, that we probably have no idea how uphill the battle will be. We've kicked around the concept that the country is divided up into the ruling class and the country class. As the country class starts to kick up its heels and toss out members of the ruling class from power, expect a giant blowback from the ruling class, in fact we're already seeing it. This means that some people formerly thought to be conservatives will be flushed out and discovered that their true allegiance is to the ruling class.

I hope the quote from Krauthammer is out of context, because I tend to really like the guy despite some of his recent comments regarding Delaware.

And here's another thing about Krauthammer's anti-O'Donnell stand that needs to be asked: Where has he been all these months during which the Tea Party Movement has gained all this momentum? Is he so out of touch with current realities that he can just dismiss them and what the TPM is all about? He not only slapped the Delaware voters in the face who voted for O'Donnell, but the entire TPM, as well! Doesn't he understand that more than a few people in this country don't like what they're seeing and want some real change? Doesn't he understand that there are numerous people out there suffering from buyers' remorse? How could he support an establishment RINO who would be opposed to everything for which the TPM stands? There's a huge disconnect here, and I'm having a problem wrapping my mind around it -- at least with someone who has always spouted conservative rhetoric.

Boxcar

Black Ruby
09-20-2010, 03:09 PM
looks to me like you need millions of enemas for those rank ranks!

boxcar
09-20-2010, 03:13 PM
Here's the complete op/ed piece from CK back in '96:
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19960408&slug=2323082

Wow! That was a revealing article by what he said and didn't say!. Thanks for posting the link. Now I know precisely where I stand and where Mr. K stands as well. But...before I reveal my thoughts, Big Mack, what do you think about his stand on the 2nd Amendment, a/k/a "gun control"? Jim, same question to you.

Boxcar

boxcar
09-20-2010, 03:15 PM
looks to me like you need millions of enemas for those rank ranks!

I need? It seems to me you're the one with "bloated" mind.

Boxcar

ArlJim78
09-20-2010, 03:22 PM
And here's another thing about Krauthammer's anti-O'Donnell stand that needs to be asked: Where has he been all these months during which the Tea Party Movement has gained all this momentum? Is he so out of touch with current realities that he can just dismiss them and what the TPM is all about? He not only slapped the Delaware voters in the face who voted for O'Donnell, but the entire TPM, as well! Doesn't he understand that more than a few people in this country don't like what they're seeing and want some real change? Doesn't he understand that there are numerous people out there suffering from buyers' remorse? How could he support an establishment RINO who would be opposed to everything for which the TPM stands? There's a huge disconnect here, and I'm having a problem wrapping my mind around it -- at least with someone who has always spouted conservative rhetoric.

Boxcar
Oh I agree, its hard to reconcile all of his remarks. Charles does come off like an elitist. I can still recall being furious with him during the 2008 campaign because of how dismissive he was of Palin and how enamored he was with Obama. He was one of the beltway elite who swallowed the koolaid with regard to how super intelligent Bammy was supposed to be.

bigmack
09-20-2010, 03:26 PM
what do you think about his stand on the 2nd Amendment, a/k/a "gun control"? Jim, same question to you.
With the exception of a little skeet shooting I'm not much of a 'gun guy'. That being said, CK was addressing the assault rifle legislation back in '96 though it appears he would like to see more gun control. The % seems awfully high in contrast to other countries. Murder rates appear to go hand in hand

I do like his line though: In the United States, 4 (!) percent of all robberies result in time served. Tell your stickup man, "You can go to jail for this," and he can correctly respond, "25-to-1 says I don't."

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/9_20_10_12_19_24.png

46zilzal
09-20-2010, 03:26 PM
Yup Jethro no kin trust them thar edge-kated boys.....Get out the double barrel and we will git ready to take over!

boxcar
09-20-2010, 03:52 PM
With the exception of a little skeet shooting I'm not much of a 'gun guy'. That being said, CK was addressing the assault rifle legislation back in '96 though it appears he would like to see more gun control. The % seems awfully high in contrast to other countries. Murder rates appear to go hand in hand

I do like his line though: In the United States, 4 (!) percent of all robberies result in time served. Tell your stickup man, "You can go to jail for this," and he can correctly respond, "25-to-1 says I don't."

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/9_20_10_12_19_24.png

I was really hoping more from you on the fundamentals to the 2nd Amendment.

As stated earlier, Mr. K revealed quite a bit about himself in that article by what he said and didn't say. Let me approach this with you another way. What was the fundamental reason behind the 2nd Amendment? Was its intent to control crime or to control a tyranny-prone government?

Boxcar

highnote
09-20-2010, 04:03 PM
I do like his line though: In the United States, 4 (!) percent of all robberies result in time served. Tell your stickup man, "You can go to jail for this," and he can correctly respond, "25-to-1 says I don't."


Sorry to go off topic with this, but can you check my math...

I think it's 24-1. Still pretty good odds for a bankrobber.

bigmack
09-20-2010, 04:10 PM
I was really hoping more from you on the fundamentals to the 2nd Amendment.

As stated earlier, Mr. K revealed quite a bit about himself in that article by what he said and didn't say. Let me approach this with you another way. What was the fundamental reason behind the 2nd Amendment? Was its intent to control crime or to control a tyranny-prone government?
CK never brought up Amendment 2. I am underqualified to speculate on the intent of the amendment but I get the gist.

Interpretations of the Second Amendment:

There are three predominant interpretations of the Second Amendment:
1. The civilian militia interpretation, which holds that the Second Amendment is no longer valid, having been intended to protect a militia system that is no longer in place.
2. The individual rights interpretation, which holds that the individual right to bear arms is a basic right on the same order as the right to free speech.
3. The median interpretation, which holds that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to bear arms but is restricted by the militia language in some way.

ArlJim78
09-20-2010, 04:20 PM
Wow! That was a revealing article by what he said and didn't say!. Thanks for posting the link. Now I know precisely where I stand and where Mr. K stands as well. But...before I reveal my thoughts, Big Mack, what do you think about his stand on the 2nd Amendment, a/k/a "gun control"? Jim, same question to you.

Boxcar
Reading the whole article was disturbing. I didn't realize he was against the second ammendment and thought it was only for frontier America and therefore now serves no purpose.

he points to Canada as an example, but if you look at the chart Mack posted Canada has not exactly confiscated all guns, in fact the guns per capita is only one third of ours, and number nine in the world. Yet they have less than 1% of the handgun murders that we have. as of 1992 that is. So our murders are way out of proportion to the number of guns. Why is that? Do we simply blame that on guns?

Notice how many guns per capita Switerland has, number three on the list. Is Switerland not a peaceful modern society? Why haven't they grabbed all the guns?

Same goes for Finland, Sweden and Austria, all modern peaceful countries. They all have in the range of 30 handguns per 100 people vs our 90. Why aren't they grabbing all the weapons if that's what civilized societies must do, and why are their crimerates so small compared to ours?

JustRalph
09-20-2010, 04:33 PM
Dick Schmidt reminded us of this quote in another thread a few days ago


"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." - Thomas Jefferson


The man wrote the Declaration of Independence and was on the committee writing the Constitution made the above quote. Do you think it leaves any doubt as to the true meaning or implications of the 2nd Amendment ? I don't......

more info:
A man named Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania was in charge of the committee to draft the final copy of the Constitution. Other men who had much to do with writing the Constitution included John Dickinson, Gouverneur Morris, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine, Edmund Randolph, James Madison, Roger Sherman, James Wilson, and George Wythe. Morris was given the task of putting all the convention's resolutions and decisions into polished form. Morris actually "wrote" the Constitution. The original copy of the document is preserved in the National Archives Building in Washington, D.C.

46zilzal
09-20-2010, 04:59 PM
Same goes for Finland, Sweden and Austria, all modern peaceful countries. They all have in the range of 30 handguns per 100 people vs our 90. Why aren't they grabbing all the weapons if that's what civilized societies must do, and why are their crime rates so small compared to ours?
Because those civilized societies have some of the lowest mortality rates from gun deaths in the world

boxcar
09-20-2010, 05:08 PM
Dick Schmidt reminded us of this quote in another thread a few days ago


"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." - Thomas Jefferson


The man wrote the Declaration of Independence and was on the committee writing the Constitution made the above quote. Do you think it leaves any doubt as to the true meaning or implications of the 2nd Amendment ? I don't......

more info:
A man named Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania was in charge of the committee to draft the final copy of the Constitution. Other men who had much to do with writing the Constitution included John Dickinson, Gouverneur Morris, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine, Edmund Randolph, James Madison, Roger Sherman, James Wilson, and George Wythe. Morris was given the task of putting all the convention's resolutions and decisions into polished form. Morris actually "wrote" the Constitution. The original copy of the document is preserved in the National Archives Building in Washington, D.C.

BINGO! You, Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Jefferson all go to the head of the class!

This was precisely the intent behind the 2nd Amendment. The Founding Fathers, above all else, were distrustful of government. (Again, everyone consider carefully the historical backdrop from which these Founders came!). They knew that Liberty and Freedom would always be assailed -- always come under assault from both within and without the state. From a Christian perspective, permit me to express it this way: It's in man's sinful human nature to curtail freedom and individual liberties at the very least! And the FFs knew this. And does not history bear this fact out? Untold billions have died in this world to either obtain freedom or to preserve it.

Now, what was very revealing and equally disturbing about Mr. K's remarks in that article is that he was silent on this issue -- this supposed Constitutionalist. Instead, he bought into the false liberal premise that crime control was the main reason people own guns -- and by extension the reason for the 2nd Amendment. And that all this society has to do is bring crime under control, then this would clear the way for the state to gradually and legally seize all the guns of its law-abiding citizens. Yes...I suppose many people do own guns for this reason -- and it's a legitimate reason. So, let no one misunderstand me. But the 2nd Amendment does not find its ground in crime control! Its central purpose was to deter tyranny because government is untrustworthy!

Krauthammer, of all people, should have known this fact. He's a brilliant man. But I'm betting that he does know the facts, but rejects them because he's not quite as conservative as he likes to portray himself. The word, "tyranny", for example, may not even be in his vocabulary.

I, for one, will from now on pay extra careful attention to this guy's words. He has given me sufficient reasons between that article and his recent treatment of O'Donnell to doubt his integrity, his motives and his agenda.

Boxcar

Tom
09-20-2010, 05:11 PM
We gots a lot of people that needs shootin'.

JustRalph
09-20-2010, 05:34 PM
Because those civilized societies have some of the lowest mortality rates from gun deaths in the world

When you deny your people the right to any item, the rate goes down. the death rate with baseball bats would be almost nil if we do away with baseball.

If someone wants to truly kill another, the weapon of choice does not matter.

Germany has very restrictive gun laws and they had a shooting today

here is another

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7938486.stm

American's have rights that other countries do not. It is what makes us different. Btw, if you are so worried about "death rates" you should outlaw cars immediately......twice as many people are killed in auto accidents every year than are killed by guns. Take out the suicides and guns account for about 20k deaths a year in the U.S. Take out the gang and organized criminal violence and guns account for only about 5k deaths a year. Mostly from domestic events. Auto accidents kill 40k.

The next time you hear that 10k kids are killed each year with guns in the U.S. be aware they are counting "kids" and gang members up to the age of 19 in that statistic.

46zilzal
09-20-2010, 06:46 PM
When you deny your people the right to any item, the rate goes down. the death rate with baseball bats would be almost nil if we do away with baseball.

If someone wants to truly kill another, the weapon of choice does not matter.

Germany has very restrictive gun laws and they had a shooting today

here is another


what malarkey. Take away a truly LETHAL option and death rates drop.

Native Texan III
09-20-2010, 06:52 PM
Right to bear arms came directly from the English Law. It was more a duty to practice and be prepared to fight for the King. For example, the archery skills in the Robin Hood films. In England, as an unintended consequence it helped to protect the people from abuse by the King and robber Barons. When Royalty got scared of the people they tried to bring in confiscatory laws.

These were the things that FF probably had in mind as their understanding of RTBA but I expect they would be surprised at what, whatever the intention of the law, it has turned into today. England seems to have been going through the same issues over a 1000 years before USA. The sight of a gun in England outside the military is now a very rare thing.

It began as a duty, operated as a mixed blessing for Kings, and wound up as one of the "true, ancient, and indubitable" rights of Englishmen. From as early as 690,the defense of the realm rested in the hands of ordinary Englishmen. Under the English militia system, every able-bodied freeman was expected to defend his society and to provide his own arms, paid for and possessed by himself. It appears that the wearing of arms was widespread. The only early limitations placed on gun possession were for the misuse of arms by appearing in certain public places "with force" under a 1279 royal enactment or by using them "in affray of the peace." These limitations were construed to prohibit only the possession of arms "accompanied with such circumstances as are apt to terrify the people" but not the mere "wearing [of] common weapons" for personal defense.
The Tudor monarchs tried to prevent hunting with crossbows, and later with firearms, by commoners by setting a minimum annual income from land as a condition of hunting, or of possession of crossbows and handguns. They were unsuccessful and, after first liberalizing the prohibitions, Henry VIII's government repealed them in 1546. As the Tudor era ended, individual armament (typically with long bows) and an individual obligation to serve in the militia was the norm for Englishmen. Historians view the widespread individual ownership of arms as an important factor in the "moderation of monarchical rule and the development of the concept of individual liberties" in England during a period when absolute, divine-right royal rule was expanding as the norm in continental Europe.

In the period leading up to the Glorious Revolution, the Stuart monarchs adopted a radical policy of personal disarmament toward those who politically threatened their royal prerogatives. This included the militia of armed freemen as well as direct political rivals. Through a series of parliamentary enactments, they tried registration of possession, registration of sales, hunting restrictions,possession bans ostensibly aimed at controlling illegal hunting, restrictions on personal arms possessed by the militia, warrantless searches, and confiscations. By 1689, the Stuart monarchs had succeeded, not at full disarmament, but at alienating their "allies" as well as their opponents and losing their throne in a bloodless revolution.

boxcar
09-20-2010, 07:03 PM
Right to bear arms came directly from the English Law. It was more a duty to practice and be prepared to fight for the King. For example, the archery skills in the Robin Hood films. In England, as an unintended consequence it helped to protect the people from abuse by the King and robber Barons. When Royalty got scared of the people they tried to bring in confiscatory laws.

And we saw how that worked out for all those who fled the oppression in England. CONSEQUENTLY, on this side of the big pond, there was a shift in attitude with arms -- from fighting "for" government to using them to fight against oppressive governments. In essence, all the people on this side of the world had the right to assume the role of Robin Hoods if necessary. ;)

Again, the FFs had a very, very healthy, justifiable and rational distrust of and for government.

Boxcar

boxcar
09-20-2010, 07:04 PM
We gots a lot of people that needs shootin'.

Where's Cheney when we need him the most? :D

Boxcar

Greyfox
09-20-2010, 07:32 PM
We conservatives might not have any idea of how steep the uphill battle will be in fighting the elitists on both sides of the aisle. If the following is true about Krauthammer, my respect for him will not only have declined sharply, but now I'll be wondering how many other covert progressives are out there masquerading as conservatives.




Krauthammer has most frequently been viewed as a conservative, and sometimes a neo-conservative.
However, I believe that Charles is basically an Independent Thinker with right leanings who loathes Obama.
His editor at the Washington Post for 15 years called his weekly column "independent and hard to peg politically."

boxcar
09-20-2010, 07:38 PM
Krauthammer has most frequently been viewed as a conservative, and sometimes a neo-conservative.
However, I believe that Charles is basically an Independent Thinker with right leanings who loathes Obama.
His editor at the Washington Post for 15 years called his weekly column "independent and hard to peg politically."

Ahh...an "independent" with right leanings and dash or two or three of liberalism sprinkled in for good measure. You've given me another reason to put him on my "watch list". :)

Boxcar

Greyfox
09-20-2010, 07:45 PM
Ahh...an "independent" with right leanings and dash or two or three of liberalism sprinkled in for good measure. You've given me another reason to put him on my "watch list". :)

Boxcar

I don't think so. He's even more loathing of Obama than you are.
But reading between the lines of his columns, he feels that there is a ground swell building with independents moving towards the right.
His fear is that if Republican candidates appear to be "too conservative," that might frighten the independents off and once again give Obama free reign and free reins. He has a good mind and may be spot on with that observation.
In effect, he's trying to help the Republican cause.

delayjf
09-20-2010, 07:49 PM
I do like his line though: In the United States, 4 (!) percent of all robberies result in time served. Tell your stickup man, "You can go to jail for this," and he can correctly respond, "25-to-1 says I don't."

The thing is not all robberies are armed robberies, Maybe JustRalph can speak to this from his experience as a cop, but I have never heard of anyone getting probation for robbing a bank - does purse snatching count as a "robbery"?

Now CK views on gun control, not with standing, I think he and Rove have valid points with regards to ODonnels electibility. You can fight a much better fight against the Progressives by regaining control of the Senate. Think about it - gain control of the Senate and you gain control over who Obama can get appointed to the Supreme Court - that is a big deal because that is the only way Progessives can dictate their political will upon the American people.

Because those civilized societies have some of the lowest mortality rates from gun deaths in the world

Or, maybe they're just lousy shots.

boxcar
09-20-2010, 08:34 PM
I don't think so. He's even more loathing of Obama than you are.
But reading between the lines of his columns, he feels that there is a ground swell building with independents moving towards the right.
His fear is that if Republican candidates appear to be "too conservative," that might frighten the independents off and once again give Obama free reign and free reins. He has a good mind and may be spot on with that observation.
In effect, he's trying to help the Republican cause.

If that's the case, then how can he support a guy who would be in BO's hip pocket? Castle might as well have a "D" after his name!

Mr. K plays the same ol' tired game of "compromise" as the libs do. But it's always, always, always the true blue conservatives who are somehow under some obligation to compromise and move toward the left. That "ground swell" you speak of is tired of that. Let the left compromise and move toward the right. And let the "moderate" independents, too, for a change compromise and move toward the right. America would be a lot better place!
You know why? Because the Right, in the world of politics, doesn't consist of a bunch of wingnut radicals ! Mr. K buys into the mainstream media's premise that those on the "right" are radicals or extremists -- and that's why we on the right must "compromise". We must soften our stand. Whereas those on the left are "moderates". In the mind of the MM, there is no such animal as a radical leftist or a left wing extremist. Non-existent in their world.

Don't believe any of this? Dig up post primary Delaware elections stories. I bet you in 90% of them Castle the RINO is portrayed as a "moderate", when in reality he's as whacked out as Reid, Pelosi or the Banking Queen, etc., etc.

Boxcar

Tom
09-20-2010, 08:58 PM
what malarkey. Take away a truly LETHAL option and death rates drop.

Take away decades and generations of failed leadership in the cities by democrats and it plummets..

Greyfox
09-20-2010, 08:59 PM
You know why? Because the Right, in the world of politics, doesn't consist of a bunch of wingnut radicals ! Boxcar

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you. Both camps have "wingnuts."
The bottom line in politics is: "Perception is reality."
Krauthammer points out that reality.
If you want Obama out, weigh his words wisely.

boxcar
09-20-2010, 09:58 PM
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you. Both camps have "wingnuts."
The bottom line in politics is: "Perception is reality."
Krauthammer points out that reality.
If you want Obama out, weigh his words wisely.

We're jumping the gun -- as apparently, CK is. First things first. And the first thing is the November elections. Unfortunately, BO will still be around long after those ballots are counted.

BO's popularity will continue to plummet -- unless the Party of Stupid really screws up big time. If they don't screw up, BO is a one-term president. And if by chance the Party of Stupid actually get some smarts and plays a little political hardball for a change, they could make this joker in the WH President No. They can make him into an obstructionist which would further alienate him and the next Dem presidential candidate from the American public. You just know BO will veto everything in sight -- anything that has Republican fingerprints on it.

The guy is already toxic, Fox -- and November isn't even here yet! Do you see him going out on the stump for his guys and dolls who are running? Do you see any Dem candidate begging BO to come and rally the troops (base) around him? His own party doesn't want him! He is already to the Democrats now what Bush was in '08 to his party.

Boxcar

JustRalph
09-20-2010, 10:51 PM
The thing is not all robberies are armed robberies, Maybe JustRalph can speak to this from his experience as a cop, but I have never heard of anyone getting probation for robbing a bank - does purse snatching count as a "robbery"?

Rob a bank and you break "Federal Law" not state or local. The FBI gets the last say on who does the charges etc....and almost always they do it under Federal guidelines. Sentence guidelines kick in and you automatically do prison time unless there are health or mental issues that are proven. At least that was the way it was 15 yrs ago....... based on the Bank Robbery Calls I took in Charlotte Last year.......seemed the same to me. But I wasn't on scene in those. Just spoke with FBI and Police on the scene. I doubt much has changed.

Depending on what state you are in, normally any "use of force" in the commission of a theft offense is considered a robbery. Different levels for different state laws. Some places "strong arm robbery (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/strong-arm) " is considered a lessor offense than a robbery with a gun or any other weapon. The school bully takes your kids lunch money and technically that may be a robbery. One good example is when a typical theft offense turns into a robbery is when a shoplifter gets stopped in a store and fights his way out.....assaulting or escalating to pulling a knife etc....it then becomes some type of robbery. Depending on the State. In Ohio if anyone is "seriously" injured during that little fracas, it is "aggravated robbery" which is a much higher offense. Same with several other crimes in Ohio. They become "aggravated" depending on the injuries incurred. Each state has their own laws

I have seen robbery suspects get probation.........depending on the judge.

dartman51
09-20-2010, 11:23 PM
Yup Jethro no kin trust them thar edge-kated boys.....Get out the double barrel and we will git ready to take over!


We can always count on an INTELLIGENT comment from you. :rolleyes:

dartman51
09-20-2010, 11:24 PM
I'm all for gun control. How else will you hit what you're shooting at??

Native Texan III
09-21-2010, 03:18 PM
And we saw how that worked out for all those who fled the oppression in England. CONSEQUENTLY, on this side of the big pond, there was a shift in attitude with arms -- from fighting "for" government to using them to fight against oppressive governments. In essence, all the people on this side of the world had the right to assume the role of Robin Hoods if necessary. ;)

Again, the FFs had a very, very healthy, justifiable and rational distrust of and for government.

Boxcar

Those who had differing religious views hardly "fled" - they were "let go" and peacefully sailed to the Americas (the New Israel). The Puritans saw their mission as to take the land for God and convert Native Indian "Canaanites" to Christianity; failing that, it was acceptable to slaughter them in the name of Christ - they bore arms. Quakers obeying Christian teaching were peacemakers and would not "bear arms" to kill, in any case.

What evidence is there that any in USA, however oppressed, will ever rise up and use their arms against the Government or what evidence is there that the citizenry with small arms are in any way protected against Government? So why cannot the 2nd Amendment be modernized to reflect the real perceived needs, or not, to bear arms - ie protection against criminals, not Government? The country is currently split 50-50 and one side would massacre the other leaving the Government out of it, if the Army and militias who have the real power did not sort it out first. RTBA is just another empty American delusion.

Tom
09-21-2010, 03:43 PM
So why cannot the 2nd Amendment be modernized to reflect the real perceived needs, or not, to bear arms - ie protection against criminals, not Government? The country is currently split 50-50....

Because we have a constitutional right to it.
Takes a lot more than 50% to amend the constitution.
Protection against criminals would, by definition, include government.

boxcar
09-21-2010, 05:11 PM
Those who had differing religious views hardly "fled" - they were "let go" and peacefully sailed to the Americas (the New Israel). The Puritans saw their mission as to take the land for God and convert Native Indian "Canaanites" to Christianity; failing that, it was acceptable to slaughter them in the name of Christ - they bore arms. Quakers obeying Christian teaching were peacemakers and would not "bear arms" to kill, in any case.

What evidence is there that any in USA, however oppressed, will ever rise up and use their arms against the Government or what evidence is there that the citizenry with small arms are in any way protected against Government? So why cannot the 2nd Amendment be modernized to reflect the real perceived needs, or not, to bear arms - ie protection against criminals, not Government? The country is currently split 50-50 and one side would massacre the other leaving the Government out of it, if the Army and militias who have the real power did not sort it out first. RTBA is just another empty American delusion.

The Constitution should never be "modernized" (changed) because the nature of "modern" [fallen] man has not changed nor ever will. End of story. The Founders had it right. They understood this.

And nice try on historical revisionism. The early colonists were oppressed by the church-state -- known as the Church of England. This is why they came to this country. Remember the Pilgrims? Remember the Mayflower? Does the date of 1620 ring any of your bells? :rolleyes: So, yes....the early settlers fled religious oppression.

Boxcar

boxcar
09-21-2010, 05:13 PM
Because we have a constitutional right to it.
Takes a lot more than 50% to amend the constitution.
Protection against criminals would, by definition, include government.

:lol: :lol: :lol: You got that right! Big Gov makes Organized Crime look like a branch of the Boy Scouts.

Boxcar

Canadian
09-21-2010, 05:25 PM
Ahh...an "independent" with right leanings and dash or two or three of liberalism sprinkled in for good measure. You've given me another reason to put him on my "watch list". :)

Boxcar


All that means is that he has a brain.

boxcar
09-21-2010, 05:28 PM
All that means is that he has a brain.

Is that what you call the malignant tumors that resulted from his liberalism? Nice euphemism. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

PaceAdvantage
09-22-2010, 02:29 AM
what malarkey. Take away a truly LETHAL option and death rates drop.did you learn a new word today? malarkey? Oh wait, maybe it's two words...I saw you use "underlaid" in a horse racing thread...

Native Texan III
09-22-2010, 07:33 PM
The British now also have an "enemy" within the Conservative Coalition Government ranks.
Business Secretary Minister, Vince Cable. Attacking the real target - the thinking man's Tea Partyist.

"Vince Cable has insisted he has a pro-business agenda but refused to apologize for attacking excessive bank bonuses paid to "spivs and gamblers".

In his speech to the Lib Dem conference, the business secretary called for action to stop capitalism "killing competition".
But he attributed the idea to the free-market economist Adam Smith.

I make no apology for attacking spivs and gamblers who did more harm to the British economy than [transport union leader] Bob Crow could achieve in his wildest Trotskyite fantasies, while paying themselves outrageous bonuses underwritten by the taxpayer.

The business secretary said the UK needed successful companies but the government would not stand aside where directors and shareholders ignored wider social concerns and threatened to damage the economy.

"Markets are often irrational or rigged," he said, announcing a review of executive pay and the responsibilities of directors during takeover battles.

"So I am shining a harsh light into the murky world of corporate behavior. Capitalism takes no prisoners and kills competition where it can, as Adam Smith explained over 200 years ago."

He added: "I want to protect consumers and keep prices down and provide a level playing field for small business, so we must be vigilant right across the economy… Competition is central to my pro market, pro business, agenda."




http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11382047

fast4522
09-22-2010, 08:11 PM
Living in NH this is the guy I listen to on such matters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urESE_NQAco