Walklightly
Moderator
OK, I re-read it, I was sleep reading/posting.
Uh oh... New push to demonize gunowners?
- Thread starter Mike Irwin
- Start date
- Status
OK, I re-read it, I was sleep reading/posting.
cannonfire
New member
Does anybody else find it odd that they use the term militia? They are trying to say that a militia automatically has guns yet that is exactly what the 2nd amend protects. It does not say government militia, just militia. Now I know there is much more meaning into what rights the 2nd amendment give citizens but to read it strictly word for word, it gives militia the right to own guns whether scary or not (assuming they haven't done anything illegal or plan to). I don't understand why they use that term if they are trying to show that these people are doing something wrong by owning guns
BPowderkeg
Moderator
this went from guns to politics and belongs in the political forum....., oooooh !! there isn't one ?? 
well then we need one from now till November 13th, 2012ad
well then we need one from now till November 13th, 2012ad
FrankenMauser
New member
Going off the deep end by thinking a set of laws that lasted 198 years should be reinstated to protect the United States flag?...
If wanting protection for our country's flag aligns me with the Taliban, then maybe ABC is correct. Maybe there is a growing number of extremists and extremist groups out there. It all depends on your point of view, doesn't it?
Our founding fathers were absolute supporters of freedom of expression, yet they also insisted on protecting the flag - our most recognized symbol.
There's a difference between repressing all freedom of expression, and reinstating protection for a single symbol of our country.
You definitely got what you wanted, though...
Calling me a terrorist for wanting the United States flag to be protected again is ...completely ridiculous.
I'm done with this thread.
Last edited:
100% Agree!
I completely agree with freedom of speech...but think a line should be drawn when it comes to desecrating our flag....but that's another topic.
What I don't agree with is the news media being biased and used as a political platform. Which IMO, is done more so in the last 4-5 years then ever. News is simply not reported without bias by many networks when it comes to politics, especially gun politics.
Again, if this organization has not boasted of amassing arms, threatened the takeover of the gov't using arms, etc. why use picture's of guns in the broadcast period?
Especially picture's of what many anti-gun and much of the public feels are the dreaded, killer 'assault' weapons....a stigma that biased media is also responsible for helping promote.
Since the news cast wasn't about guns, why didn't they put pictures of the Bible, knitting needles or puppies in the newscast background instead of the dreaded guns?.... Hype that's why!
News media calls this organization a militia. That's one thing. Put in your headlines the words ''Secret militia', not agreeing with our government then tack on guns' ,...oooh, doesn't that make the story sound more juicy and has a tendency to make more people take notice.
How 'SECRET' are they? They gave interviews to the media.
If not agreeing with everything the government does(esp. current admin.), or, all our laws, while owning guns makes us a 'news worthy' militia...well... the media better pick up the pace on its reporting. They're behind schedule.
I'm not defending nor promoting the organization that is the subject of the news cast. Don't know anything about them. But if they've made no threats with guns, they haven't done anything illegal by owning them.
Last edited:
Rifleman1776
New member
"new" push?
So.....wats new?
So.....wats new?
Mike Irwin
Staff
OK, this has gotten far enough afield that it is no longer about the original question/observation, so I think I'll just shut it down here.
- Status