- This topic has 145 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 2 months ago by
paramount.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 23, 2009 at 8:51 PM #473813October 23, 2009 at 10:07 PM #473000
Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=bsrsharma]He legally owns 43 firearms in his home and there is no problem with it? How does a security guard afford that many? He must have spent tens of thousands on his collection.[/quote]
And? So what if he owns 43 guns? Growing up, we had a neighbor who taught American history at Stanford University and he owned over 300 guns, most of which were period pieces like Colt single action pistols and Winchester and Henry lever action rifles. I don’t recall anyone having an issue with that.
This is the sort of nonsense that makes me grind my teeth. If one were to substitute “Hummel figurines” for “guns”, there wouldn’t be any sort of question at all. And don’t start with that “but guns kill people” crap, either. This is a Constitutionally protected right we’re talking about. Just because you don’t like guns has nothing to do with the argument.
October 23, 2009 at 10:07 PM #473181Participant[quote=bsrsharma]He legally owns 43 firearms in his home and there is no problem with it? How does a security guard afford that many? He must have spent tens of thousands on his collection.[/quote]
And? So what if he owns 43 guns? Growing up, we had a neighbor who taught American history at Stanford University and he owned over 300 guns, most of which were period pieces like Colt single action pistols and Winchester and Henry lever action rifles. I don’t recall anyone having an issue with that.
This is the sort of nonsense that makes me grind my teeth. If one were to substitute “Hummel figurines” for “guns”, there wouldn’t be any sort of question at all. And don’t start with that “but guns kill people” crap, either. This is a Constitutionally protected right we’re talking about. Just because you don’t like guns has nothing to do with the argument.
October 23, 2009 at 10:07 PM #473545Participant[quote=bsrsharma]He legally owns 43 firearms in his home and there is no problem with it? How does a security guard afford that many? He must have spent tens of thousands on his collection.[/quote]
And? So what if he owns 43 guns? Growing up, we had a neighbor who taught American history at Stanford University and he owned over 300 guns, most of which were period pieces like Colt single action pistols and Winchester and Henry lever action rifles. I don’t recall anyone having an issue with that.
This is the sort of nonsense that makes me grind my teeth. If one were to substitute “Hummel figurines” for “guns”, there wouldn’t be any sort of question at all. And don’t start with that “but guns kill people” crap, either. This is a Constitutionally protected right we’re talking about. Just because you don’t like guns has nothing to do with the argument.
October 23, 2009 at 10:07 PM #473621Participant[quote=bsrsharma]He legally owns 43 firearms in his home and there is no problem with it? How does a security guard afford that many? He must have spent tens of thousands on his collection.[/quote]
And? So what if he owns 43 guns? Growing up, we had a neighbor who taught American history at Stanford University and he owned over 300 guns, most of which were period pieces like Colt single action pistols and Winchester and Henry lever action rifles. I don’t recall anyone having an issue with that.
This is the sort of nonsense that makes me grind my teeth. If one were to substitute “Hummel figurines” for “guns”, there wouldn’t be any sort of question at all. And don’t start with that “but guns kill people” crap, either. This is a Constitutionally protected right we’re talking about. Just because you don’t like guns has nothing to do with the argument.
October 23, 2009 at 10:07 PM #473845Participant[quote=bsrsharma]He legally owns 43 firearms in his home and there is no problem with it? How does a security guard afford that many? He must have spent tens of thousands on his collection.[/quote]
And? So what if he owns 43 guns? Growing up, we had a neighbor who taught American history at Stanford University and he owned over 300 guns, most of which were period pieces like Colt single action pistols and Winchester and Henry lever action rifles. I don’t recall anyone having an issue with that.
This is the sort of nonsense that makes me grind my teeth. If one were to substitute “Hummel figurines” for “guns”, there wouldn’t be any sort of question at all. And don’t start with that “but guns kill people” crap, either. This is a Constitutionally protected right we’re talking about. Just because you don’t like guns has nothing to do with the argument.
October 23, 2009 at 10:37 PM #473015paramount
ParticipantTo me it’s stories like this that provide proof that the mainstream media and the government conspire on cases such as this one.
The government and the mainstream media understand how to manipulate populist opinion and the average American; and that’s where these cases start.
The government wants to get out front to try and manipulate public opinion on these cases.
How many ‘average’ citizens when reading a story in a typical newspaper about an arrest and/or charges almost automatically assume the person arrested/charged must be guilty?
Same thing goes for the average person sitting in a jury box.
October 23, 2009 at 10:37 PM #473196ParticipantTo me it’s stories like this that provide proof that the mainstream media and the government conspire on cases such as this one.
The government and the mainstream media understand how to manipulate populist opinion and the average American; and that’s where these cases start.
The government wants to get out front to try and manipulate public opinion on these cases.
How many ‘average’ citizens when reading a story in a typical newspaper about an arrest and/or charges almost automatically assume the person arrested/charged must be guilty?
Same thing goes for the average person sitting in a jury box.
October 23, 2009 at 10:37 PM #473560ParticipantTo me it’s stories like this that provide proof that the mainstream media and the government conspire on cases such as this one.
The government and the mainstream media understand how to manipulate populist opinion and the average American; and that’s where these cases start.
The government wants to get out front to try and manipulate public opinion on these cases.
How many ‘average’ citizens when reading a story in a typical newspaper about an arrest and/or charges almost automatically assume the person arrested/charged must be guilty?
Same thing goes for the average person sitting in a jury box.
October 23, 2009 at 10:37 PM #473635ParticipantTo me it’s stories like this that provide proof that the mainstream media and the government conspire on cases such as this one.
The government and the mainstream media understand how to manipulate populist opinion and the average American; and that’s where these cases start.
The government wants to get out front to try and manipulate public opinion on these cases.
How many ‘average’ citizens when reading a story in a typical newspaper about an arrest and/or charges almost automatically assume the person arrested/charged must be guilty?
Same thing goes for the average person sitting in a jury box.
October 23, 2009 at 10:37 PM #473860ParticipantTo me it’s stories like this that provide proof that the mainstream media and the government conspire on cases such as this one.
The government and the mainstream media understand how to manipulate populist opinion and the average American; and that’s where these cases start.
The government wants to get out front to try and manipulate public opinion on these cases.
How many ‘average’ citizens when reading a story in a typical newspaper about an arrest and/or charges almost automatically assume the person arrested/charged must be guilty?
Same thing goes for the average person sitting in a jury box.
October 24, 2009 at 6:54 AM #473097Participant[quote=paramount]To me it’s stories like this that provide proof that the mainstream media and the government conspire on cases such as this one.
The government and the mainstream media understand how to manipulate populist opinion and the average American; and that’s where these cases start.
The government wants to get out front to try and manipulate public opinion on these cases.
How many ‘average’ citizens when reading a story in a typical newspaper about an arrest and/or charges almost automatically assume the person arrested/charged must be guilty?
Same thing goes for the average person sitting in a jury box.[/quote]
Paramount: Exactly. Along the lines of, “Well, if the police arrested him, they MUST have had a reason”.
We’re not told what these “terroristic threats” are, only that he made them. Then we’re told he’s a Republican and a member of the NRA, the implication being that he’s a right wing wacko, but both organizations are perfectly legal to belong to. Lastly, we’re told, horror of horrors!, that he owns 43 guns. Other than a vigorous exercise of his 2nd Amendment rights, he’s violated no laws here, either.
However, the picture that has been painted is of a well armed, rabid fascist who’s just itching to wreak havoc on his President and country.
October 24, 2009 at 6:54 AM #473275Participant[quote=paramount]To me it’s stories like this that provide proof that the mainstream media and the government conspire on cases such as this one.
The government and the mainstream media understand how to manipulate populist opinion and the average American; and that’s where these cases start.
The government wants to get out front to try and manipulate public opinion on these cases.
How many ‘average’ citizens when reading a story in a typical newspaper about an arrest and/or charges almost automatically assume the person arrested/charged must be guilty?
Same thing goes for the average person sitting in a jury box.[/quote]
Paramount: Exactly. Along the lines of, “Well, if the police arrested him, they MUST have had a reason”.
We’re not told what these “terroristic threats” are, only that he made them. Then we’re told he’s a Republican and a member of the NRA, the implication being that he’s a right wing wacko, but both organizations are perfectly legal to belong to. Lastly, we’re told, horror of horrors!, that he owns 43 guns. Other than a vigorous exercise of his 2nd Amendment rights, he’s violated no laws here, either.
However, the picture that has been painted is of a well armed, rabid fascist who’s just itching to wreak havoc on his President and country.
October 24, 2009 at 6:54 AM #473637Participant[quote=paramount]To me it’s stories like this that provide proof that the mainstream media and the government conspire on cases such as this one.
The government and the mainstream media understand how to manipulate populist opinion and the average American; and that’s where these cases start.
The government wants to get out front to try and manipulate public opinion on these cases.
How many ‘average’ citizens when reading a story in a typical newspaper about an arrest and/or charges almost automatically assume the person arrested/charged must be guilty?
Same thing goes for the average person sitting in a jury box.[/quote]
Paramount: Exactly. Along the lines of, “Well, if the police arrested him, they MUST have had a reason”.
We’re not told what these “terroristic threats” are, only that he made them. Then we’re told he’s a Republican and a member of the NRA, the implication being that he’s a right wing wacko, but both organizations are perfectly legal to belong to. Lastly, we’re told, horror of horrors!, that he owns 43 guns. Other than a vigorous exercise of his 2nd Amendment rights, he’s violated no laws here, either.
However, the picture that has been painted is of a well armed, rabid fascist who’s just itching to wreak havoc on his President and country.
October 24, 2009 at 6:54 AM #473715Participant[quote=paramount]To me it’s stories like this that provide proof that the mainstream media and the government conspire on cases such as this one.
The government and the mainstream media understand how to manipulate populist opinion and the average American; and that’s where these cases start.
The government wants to get out front to try and manipulate public opinion on these cases.
How many ‘average’ citizens when reading a story in a typical newspaper about an arrest and/or charges almost automatically assume the person arrested/charged must be guilty?
Same thing goes for the average person sitting in a jury box.[/quote]
Paramount: Exactly. Along the lines of, “Well, if the police arrested him, they MUST have had a reason”.
We’re not told what these “terroristic threats” are, only that he made them. Then we’re told he’s a Republican and a member of the NRA, the implication being that he’s a right wing wacko, but both organizations are perfectly legal to belong to. Lastly, we’re told, horror of horrors!, that he owns 43 guns. Other than a vigorous exercise of his 2nd Amendment rights, he’s violated no laws here, either.
However, the picture that has been painted is of a well armed, rabid fascist who’s just itching to wreak havoc on his President and country.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.