Peace
39 years ago today…
On Aug. 15, 1969, half a million people descended on a dairy farm outside Woodstock, N.Y., to celebrate three days of music, marking one of the most important and legendary events of the 1960s.
American conservatives were so freaked out by the sight of it that they spent the next 30 years funding and bulding a network of interlocking “think tanks” and reactionary right-wing media/political/social advocacy groups.
Thanks hippies!
Talk about rewriting history!
Congrats on your degree from the University of VH-1. Say hello for me to the faculty of self-promoted grandeur!
Crotchy has issues. Keep flailing those arms buddy, they’ll come off eventually. Wheeeeeeee!
Easy there, Von Catnip!!!
You might blow your O-ring…..
you serious with this post?
Ha! Like after a day-trip to Tijauna!
Tom – Sadly yes, didn’t you know Bush & his crony republicans are responsible for all the ills of the world according to DE Liberal?
FYI – I blamed the hippies. Did you even read the post?
Why read… when one knows all the answers.
I was referring to your discussion of “american conservatives” in the last 30 years.
Ironic coming from 2 folks who don’t read (or comprehend) much of anything.
Tom S,
You have a different version of the last 30 years of conservatism? Let ‘er rip.
“Why read… when one knows all the answers.”
Or in your case Pandora.
Why read when one’s ignorance cannot be broken by logic or facts? Why read when one’s ideology demands that she be unable to comprehend?
wha whaa whaa wha – ur stoopit – wha wha whaa wha – i no u r, butt wat am i? – wha wha whhhaa wha.
What about all the credit that the Nixon era gets for founding the Modern Conservative Movement?
Wasn’t this Movement a response to the growing Populism that came from the 60s?
The wingnut blathering has now faded into white noise, and as usual the substance of the post is unassailable.
Thank you, thank you very much.
“wha whaa whaa wha – ur stoopit – wha wha whaa wha – i no u r, butt wat am i? – wha wha whhhaa wha. ”
Good job Von – You’ve just channeled a Jason / Pandora / DBB response perfectly.
“Why read when one’s ignorance cannot be broken by logic or facts? Why read when one’s ideology demands that she be unable to comprehend?”
Dude, you’re a fucking tape recorder. I think you’ve written something like that every time when you have nothing to say.
It’s not applicable; it’s a Pee Wee Herman retort.
Gosh I wish mike w would get a life.
It was a direct response to Pandora’s
“Why read when one has all the answers?” I simply asked the same type of question of her.
Good to know Rebecca. Glad to see you don’t like me and have nothing substantive to say. It’s certainly real “progressive” of you (given your website)
yeah, progressive as in moving on past foolishness and self-imposed ignorance.
Rebecca – I got this under “What We Believe” from your website.
“We believe that all Citizens are entitled to equal rights and equal treatment under the law, and that no one shall be denied these rights because of gender, race, ethnic origin, sexual orientation or religion.”
How do you reconcile this position (which I agree with wholeheartedly) with the official Democratic 2008 Platform
http://www.workinglife.org/storage/users/4/4/images/111/2008%20democratic%20platform%20080808.pdf
“We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ continued Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements, like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.”
How do you reconcile your support for “equal rights and equal treatment” with the Democratic Official Platform that the rights of American citizens are dependent upon where they live?
you have the right to move.
Tell it to the people who own homes in certain communities where they are not able to put up holiday lights or political signs on the lawn. What about their 1A rights?
Point is: you can have it, but not have it unconditionally.
So if we suddenly got rid of the 4th Amendment in say Chicago your response to Chicago residents would be “Just Move?”
If the police started rounding up anyone they saw to be searched en masse with no PC and kicked in the doors of every single resident in high-crime/drug neighborhoods without warrants you’d be perfectly OK with it because they can just move.
Nice to know you’d have no problem with a certain state or city setting up a police state and disregarding the entire bill of rights.
Your political signs, holidays lights example is crap. That’s not the government telling them they can’t do it.
Who said anything about getting rid of any of the Amendments?
There is president with restrictions, such as libel, hot pursuit, felons not able to vote…etc…
Keep on with the tangents; it’s silly yet funny!
You make it sound like if there is a ban on one part of whatever, it’s a total ban on everything.
If the gov’t ok’d a deeded community to place restrictions, then wouldn’t that be the gov’t telling dissenters that they have no recourse?
So if you want to own an AK, but the city of Chicago will not allow it, what other option do you have, besides possessing it illegally?
Von – Explain why It’s OK to ban guns in DC and Chicago? Are the rights of those folks less important than folks in Wilmington?
Would it be OK for DC to pass a law saying they no longer needed a warrant or any cause whatsoever to search you on the street or invade your home? If they did so would your response to the citizens of DC who’s rights were just trampled on be “Tough Luck, move somewhere else?”
This is America, we don’t declare the Bill of Rights null and void in certain areas.
I don’t think banning all guns is right….it’s unconstitutional. You won’t get an argument from me on that one.
What I will argue is that the government, be it local, state, or fed, has the ability, through precedent, to limit the kinds of guns (weapons) you may possess. That’s my point. You have a right, but it’s not an all-encompassing, unfettered right.
Now if you qualify your question with ‘handguns’ instead of ‘guns’, then you have two choices that I know of….
Either take your case to court, or vote out the politicians who enacted the specific ban.
“Either take your case to court, or vote out the politicians who enacted the specific ban.”
So if I live somewhere like DC, where the majority of the people support gun control my rights should be null & void because THEY don’t want to exercize them? A tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. That’s why we have a Bill of Rights and why America isn’t a Democracy.
So banning all guns is unconstitutional, but banning all handguns is not? Handguns are an entire class of arms.
Such arguments fall apart when applied to other rights.
Under your twisted logic it’s OK to ban free speech on the internet and on TV since we still have the right to use printed media.
Only if you assume that all rights, and the medium through which they’re applied, are the same.
Take the right to vote: Since person A is a felon, they can’t vote, but it doesn’t mean they have no right to due process.
“Take the right to vote: Since person A is a felon, they can’t vote, but it doesn’t mean they have no right to due process.”
Try again. That doesnt address what I said in my above comment in any way, shape or form.
“A tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. That’s why we have a Bill of Rights and why America isn’t a Democracy.”
And that’s why we have the courts.
And that doesn’t excuse blatant, wholesale violations of the constitution, nor does it excuse the politicians (and folks like you) who support such violations.
Listen. A right to free speech inherently includes all forms of communication, irregardless of technology, but, and you’ll agree, there are limitation to this right, same for assembly and religion.
A right to bear arms is just that, you can have an ‘arm’. What kind of ‘arm’ is up for the gov’t and the courts to decide and limit, which it has been.
You are using a false analogy; the method of application for one is not the same for all. If you cannot comprehend that, then sorry, there’s nothing more that I can say to clarify it.
off to lunch!
Just what is the ‘gun show loophole’? How many who spout this term can define it or have ever attended a gun show?
Is is just another Liberal Lie?
Inquiring minds would like to know?
What they want to do Arthur is ban all private sales.
There is no “gun show loophole” A gun show is not a magical place where I can buy a gun without a background check. If I buy from a dealer I have to go through the process, whether I’m at a gun show or not. If I buy a gun from my neighbor I can buy it from him face-to-face at a gun show, in a parking lot, or in my driveway.
Thanks, hippies, for showing us the way of good times, good sex, and good music. America would not have been the same without Woodstock!
The Gun show loophole is a legal sale of a gun at a gun show that does not require a criminal or psychological background check, unlike other legal sales.
I suppose you gun freaks just love the sale of weapons to criminals and crazy people.
DD – you are wrong. I just told you what the so-called “gun show loophole” is and you ignored it. Your so called “loophole” applies anywhere and everywhere in the state among 2 consenting parties. Other than in name it has little if anything to do with “gun shows”
Hey Mike…..the gun shop loophole does not cover dealer to individual sales, only individual to individual sales, and those do happen at gun shows, and they don’t require a background check. Hence the loophole.
Do I understand this correctly?
If I go to a Brothel, where deals are made under control of the Government and the Health department. I meet an Independent Contractor at the Brothel who is not a registered dealer, and who probably does not sell enough to be considered a dealer.
AND we cut a deal, Then That is a LOOPHOLE?
And is the responsibility of the Brothel?
Or the Diner, the Movies or the Concert?
Or the Church Gathering?
.
If that is a loophole, it should be closed, and every deal should be monitored before it is consummated. That ought to end the AIDS epidemic.
The CDC “believes” that Guns are an epidemic, and tries to use their arguments for control purposes.
Aids IS an epidemic.
If you’re interested in great music happening outdoors in the present, I’m blogging from the Philly Folk Fest this weekend.
“Hey Mike…..the gun shop loophole does not cover dealer to individual sales, only individual to individual sales, and those do happen at gun shows, and they don’t require a background check. Hence the loophole.”
DD – Re-Read comment #36. There is no “gun show loophole.”
Agreed, there is no gun show loophole with regard to dealers.
Demopratts just like to cling to their little whines.
They’re just deathly afraid of conservatives who love guns!
Mata – Quite frankly it doesn’t matter that they’re dead wrong. They seem to have this desperate need to cling to ignorance.
Individual to individual [ gun ] sales happen all the time. It is impossible to stop, control or to TAX such occurrences.
Last week, at a follow-up meeting regarding the death of the woman on South Van Buren Street, and how to stop the violence… The Police acknowledged that they have confiscated 714 guns, in WILMINGTON.
When asked what was the results of the study, on the source of the weapons, it was revealed that there was no study performed. No response from ATF who receives the guns from WILMPD. Interesting, how politicians and political appointees in the PD can suggest alternatives and approaches to fixing the gun problem, when given 714 guns, they do not do a study or background check to determine the source of the guns.
How do you propose to fix a problem, when you do not even try to study the situation? No diagnosis.
Would you take your CAR to an auto mechanic that behaved that way? Just as well to see a PSYCHIC.
Mike W. ===> It is willful ignorance.
“Mike W. ===> It is willful ignorance.”
Yup. Sadly DD speaks as if he knows what he’s talking about.
A bit more on “gun shows” from an FBI study on Cop attackers.
http://www.policeone.com/writers/columnists/force-science/articles/1243754/
“Predominately handguns were used in the assaults on officers and all but one were obtained illegally, usually in street transactions or in thefts. In contrast to media myth, none of the firearms in the study was obtained from gun shows. ”
Criminals got guns illegally. Not surprising. None came from “gun shows.” Again, not surprising since all the normal laws & background checks apply to purchases at gun shows.
“None regularly used a holster”
Not surprising, since I’ve almost NEVER heard of criminals carrying in holsters. If you see someone with a holstered firearm in khakis and a tucked polo shirt he’s the last person you need to worry about.
Hey DD, just wondering, do you have any idea yet what the so-called “gun show loophole” actually is?