Right-Wing Extremist?

[Scotty2Hotty]

Didn't want to put it in here, but seems that those that frequent the Gun Crew are one alike. Seeing things tonight from various TV/Internet "news" sources, about the Tea Party kind of set me off to say the least. I can brush off the "disgruntled Veteran" comments I heard from the liberal cock sucking mouth of Keith Olberman, but saying the "recreation" of the Tea Party (Boston Tea Party) will lead into things like civil war, is just down right fear-mongering again. Besides the point, seems like DHS(Homeland Security) is worried about the rise of "Right-Wing Extremists". So that leads me to ask, according to the term and deffinition that reads, "Far right, extreme right, hard right, ultra-right or radical right are terms used to discuss the qualitative or quantitative position a group or person occupies within a political spectrum."

 

According to DHS, FBI and the other .gov agencies, being on the right-wing pushes you into a category of being a domestic terrorist in eyes. I think we can all agree about the need for the Constitution to be followed to it's very word. From what I've been seeing as of late, only freedom of speech implies to those on the left side of things.

 

Figured I'd share this man's opinions, since he makes great points on the 2nd Amendment Rights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKLVvLgJH5c

[Scotty2Hotty]

**TO summarize, if you believe in/own firearms, love your Country, are somewhat religious, and can't stand when the .gov tries to tell you how to live your life. You = Right Wing Extremist

[Drewhop]

Sign me up then. I have a hard time watching any type of news source anymore cause it makes me sick to my stomach. I will just slowly keep stocking piling misc. items and if the time ever comes I will be prepared.

[Scotty2Hotty]

It's a sad day when the United States of America isn't UNITED anymore. But I am quite proud of the Tea Party movement going on though, Thomas Jefferson would be proud again.

[87GT]

I have nothing to add other then when I went to England I saw a coffee shop that was named "The Boston Tea Party". It made me lol and I took pictures of it.

[andyjs3589]

**TO summarize, if you believe in/own firearms, love your Country, are somewhat religious, and can't stand when the .gov tries to tell you how to live your life. You = Right Wing Extremist

 

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e294/andyjs3589/tnrightwing-extremist-oath.jpg

[copperhead]

http://www.columbusracing.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64913

[Guest Hal]

If elected, I will make things better.

[rch10007]

I'm happy to eliminate granola.

[Drewhop]

Back in the good old days we used to face the flag and say that every morning.

 

And I felt proud everytime I said it. Even when I was little I knew what it meant.

[sol740]

"Liberal Cock Sucker", "Right Wing Extremist", you guys are flipping coins.

 

As usual Scott I agree, and disagree with you. On one hand I agree the constitution should be upheld. However its not that most people don't believe that, its that there are differing opinions pertaining to the interpretation of said materials, and whether or not something written so long ago can be relative to modern society, and that is a question worth asking.

 

Questions do need to be asked, and the asking of said questions doesn't necessarily make someone a "Liberal Cocksucker", no more than liking guns makes someone a right-wing extremist. As far as the owning of firearms (which seems to be the constant epicenter of discussion) it is such a complex web of shit, its difficult to gauge whether or not the owning of firearms by private citizens that have such a healthy pension for violence, as we do, is a good idea. Of course you know where I stand, I want to own guns to protect myself from criminals, and from a tyrannical government, I think we agree there. However there is no argument that we are far and away the most violent, modernized (dare I say civil), society when compared to similar countries with a similar set of ethics, and base moral standards (term used loosely of course).

 

Now of course I'm always up for a little political upheaval, but I would question whether or not the comfort level of most living in the United States is high enough, that a REVOLUTION would be unlikely to garner any real numbers outside of a militant minority. I'd like to be part of your Tea-Parties but there are too many of you right-wing whackos waltzing around for me to be interested. I'm kidding of course.

 

It's a sad day when the United States of America isn't UNITED anymore.

 

Lets be serious here, we never were "United" per se, opposing political parties and ideologies have existed since the forming of the first colony, and will continue to exist amongst our most important right, that to be free.

 

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e294/andyjs3589/tnrightwing-extremist-oath.jpg

 

 

My only issue with this is the adding of the words "Under God", which was not originally in the Pledge, but added in 1954. Ironically followed by the original word "indivisible".

[Scotty2Hotty]

"Liberal Cock Sucker", "Right Wing Extremist", you guys are flipping coins.

 

As usual Scott I agree, and disagree with you. On one hand I agree the constitution should be upheld. However its not that most people don't believe that, its that there are differing opinions pertaining to the interpretation of said materials, and whether or not something written so long ago can be relative to modern society, and that is a question worth asking.

The thing is, it SHOULD NOT be open for interpretation. It is the foundation of the United States of America, plain and simple. We nullify the Constitution when we take the bits and pieces we like, but discards what doesn't fit into our taste. It is what it is, like it, or get the fuck out. I'm not aiming that comment to you, but to those in which you have stated have those differences in opinions on the matter.

 

Questions do need to be asked, and the asking of said questions doesn't necessarily make someone a "Liberal Cocksucker", no more than liking guns makes someone a right-wing extremist. As far as the owning of firearms (which seems to be the constant epicenter of discussion) it is such a complex web of shit, its difficult to gauge whether or not the owning of firearms by private citizens that have such a healthy pension for violence, as we do, is a good idea. Of course you know where I stand, I want to own guns to protect myself from criminals, and from a tyrannical government, I think we agree there. However there is no argument that we are far and away the most violent, modernized (dare I say civil), society when compared to similar countries with a similar set of ethics, and base moral standards (term used loosely of course).

The liberal cocksucker term is directed at a few choice people (Mostly liberal) in office. I think most know who they are. One of which tends to lead the anti-gun campaign, in which SHE has absolutely no knowledge other than what the Brady center feeds her on a daily basis. Putting her in charge of the anti-gun movement is like letting Michael Jackson teach a pre-school class.

 

The liberals I speak of being the cocksuckers, the ill informed, fear mongering, worthless hippies. The ones that are so fast to protest a war in violent fashion, oppose any form of Religion, hate of the 2nd Amendment, and the list could continue. They are more than welcome to keep utilizing their 1st Amendment RIGHT by spreading all the filth they do without prior education. Again, I think I'll use my pal Keith Olberman, since he seems a perfectly suited target for my bashing. Not only did I hear him stereotype me and many of my fellow OIF/OEF Veterans as disgruntled, but had the balls to again speak of how dangerous it is that people were peacefully speaking out about the raping our current Government is doing to the people of America. He felt the need to spout off that, it's a dangerous road, and the right-wing was behind all of this. Not to mention feels the need to blow a comment about succession out of porportion.

 

Now of course I'm always up for a little political upheaval, but I would question whether or not the comfort level of most living in the United States is high enough, that a REVOLUTION would be unlikely to garner any real numbers outside of a militant minority. I'd like to be part of your Tea-Parties but there are too many of you right-wing whackos waltzing around for me to be interested. I'm kidding of course.

If I didn't work so late I deffinately would've been there. When you look into the current state of affairs, it is like we almost have to wipe the slate clean and start from scratch. I'll keep my comments about the current folks in charge to myself, but a rivival of the Revolutionary days and their values might be a welcome sight. Life, Liberty and the persuit of happiness has always been a forefront of this country. The .gov was put in place to serve the people, and put their by the people. Given the numero uno Amendment, (If I were not still an active member of something) I could speak out all I wanted to without impunity.

 

That being said, nobody will infringe on the media's right, an individual's right nor a group's right to free speach. Plenty of the left-wing, more liberal groups/folks can speak their mind all they want and the right-wing never once will impead on their Right to do so. Now, when the other side tends to try to infringe on something like the 2nd Amendment that is closely tied to the Right-wing, there is a problem. If you see what I'm getting at, rarely is the right-wing actually violent, nor does it try to impead upon Rights, like those that are normally associated with the left side, or the more "liberal" side. (I am liberal in a few issues myself, so this is not meant to be me picking sides)

 

 

 

Lets be serious here, we never were "United" per se, opposing political parties and ideologies have existed since the forming of the first colony, and will continue to exist amongst our most important right, that to be free.

I will agree to that, again to a point. The country was obviously United enough to Declare our Independence, and United enough to birth a country from an iron fist.

 

But, in the eyes of Pelosi, I guess I'm the great white satan for believing in organized Religion, embracing my right to bear arms, Loving my flag, saying the pledge of allegance with my hand over my heart, not 100% for abortion, and that I don't agree with spending money we don't have to save our country from the deep frier.

Edited April 17, 2009 by Infidel

[copperhead]

(I am liberal in a few issues myself, so this is not meant to be me picking sides)

 

See;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberal

 

I will agree to that, again to a point. The country was obviously United enough to Declare our Independence, and United enough to birth a country from an iron fist.

 

Think its possible to do it again?

Down with the redcoats! Err, wait, I guess this time it's the bluecoats.

[paktinat]

If you see what I'm getting at, rarely is the right-wing actually violent, nor does it try to impead upon Rights, like those that are normally associated with the left side

 

Whoa whoa whoa.

I was going to stay out of this thread, but that statement did me in. not the violence, but the impediment of rights.

 

First let me say that I agree that it is a shame that the media is casting right-wingers in the extremist light, but its the media, they are sensationalists. This is the same media system that was, 8 years ago, trying to say people protesting the war were unpatriotic, the same people who were telling people that disagreed with the previous administrations politics "if you dont like it here, get out."

 

But that is a media problem, we have a huge problem with our media in this country, and while this thread started as a discussion about that its quickly turned into a right vs left discussion as these things usually do.

 

I whole heartily disagree with your statement that the left infringes on more rights than right.

I'll concede the 2nd amendment, for some reason people on the left are always trying to take this away, and its stupid. The question of weather or not it should be in the constitution is a non issue. Its the constitution, its what everything is based on. If you start nullifying that document then you begin to chip away the foundation of this country.

 

I think we all can agree on that.

 

But, lets examine the constitutional infringements of the previous administrations 8 years of office.

-separation of powers

-free press

-free speech

-privacy

-illegal search and seizures

-due process

-open democracy

 

For me, the offenses are much more egregious constitutional violations than the infringement on the right to bear arms.

[Drewhop]

Think its possible to do it again?

 

Few sources said there are roughly 250+ million guns in america owned by private citizens. I think that number is low.

[Drewhop]

For me, the offenses are much more egregious constitutional violations than the infringement on the right to bear arms.

 

I am not sure you got the most recent memo but if this right is taken away from us then WE have no backbone.

 

‘‘The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non ["something essential" lit. "without which not"] for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police.’’

-- Adolph Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938

[stangsn95gt]

Whoa whoa whoa.

I was going to stay out of this thread, but that statement did me in. not the violence, but the impediment of rights.

 

First let me say that I agree that it is a shame that the media is casting right-wingers in the extremist light, but its the media, they are sensationalists. This is the same media system that was, 8 years ago, trying to say people protesting the war were unpatriotic, the same people who were telling people that disagreed with the previous administrations politics "if you dont like it here, get out."

 

But that is a media problem, we have a huge problem with our media in this country, and while this thread started as a discussion about that its quickly turned into a right vs left discussion as these things usually do.

 

I whole heartily disagree with your statement that the left infringes on more rights than right.

I'll concede the 2nd amendment, for some reason people on the left are always trying to take this away, and its stupid. The question of weather or not it should be in the constitution is a non issue. Its the constitution, its what everything is based on. If you start nullifying that document then you begin to chip away the foundation of this country.

 

I think we all can agree on that.

 

But, lets examine the constitutional infringements of the previous administrations 8 years of office.

-separation of powers

-free press

-free speech

-privacy

-illegal search and seizures

-due process

-open democracy

 

For me, the offenses are much more egregious constitutional violations than the infringement on the right to bear arms.

 

:eek:left-wing extremist?

[copperhead]

I am not sure you got the most recent memo but if this right is taken away from us then WE have no backbone.

 

‘‘The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non ["something essential" lit. "without which not"] for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police.’’

-- Adolph Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938

 

GODWIN'S LAW

 

fail

 

I almost locked this too...

[OSUGT]

http://www.zazzle.com/george_washington_wtf_t_shirt-235997573345615845

 

 

sums all this up pretty well.

[copperhead]

But, lets examine the constitutional infringements of the previous administrations 8 years of office.

-separation of powers

-free press

-free speech

-privacy

-illegal search and seizures

-due process

-open democracy

 

For me, the offenses are much more egregious constitutional violations than the infringement on the right to bear arms.

 

Separation of power has been fucked for much longer than this.

 

How did Bush infringe on freedom of press or speach, when I couldn't go a day for the past 5 years without hearing someone bad mouthing him?

 

There is no right to privacy, although there should be

 

What illegal search and seizures? Give me evidence of this happening to US citizens here in this country.

 

Due process? Non-citizens that are not prisoners of war don't have the rights that citizens do, therefore due process does not apply to them. We just usually allow it to be nice.

 

Open democracy? Seriously? Notice how the GOP did not win this election, but I suppose that's because Bush wanted Obama to win. If anything, Pelosi is trying to destroy open democracy.

 

Your (lack of) "egregious constitutional violations" can happen all day long if there is no way to keep the .gov in check. You keep the .gov in check by lobbing bullets their way. It saved us from British rule, it can save us from the rule of a bunch of raving lunatics too.