>>>So, would you then agree that citizens bearing arms are not extremists, while citizens destroying property might be more accurately described as such?
I have no problem with people carrying arms. Handguns are fine!
People looting and destroying should be arrested.
Also not to compare with a few mindless youth breaking windows (ala sifos depiction of all OWS)the people below behaved similarly
Those people who through tea into the harbor a few hundred years ago we now call patriots.
Those people who through tea into the harbor a few hundred years ago we now call patriots.
My recollection is fuzzy on this, did the tea actually belong to someone here or was it still the property of the Crown?
As far as equating the two groups, if somebody who is visibly carrying a gun starts destroying property, he should expect to be shot on sight in my opinion.
If somebody isn't carrying a gun, but is instead using a bicycle lock to break windows, then non-lethal force should be used to subdue him.
If he is throwing an incendiary device, he should expect to be shot.
These are my opinions. When you swim with sharks, expect to be bitten.
Wow - now I see why Ron Paul never gets any attention at debates and in the press, as a presidential candidate. It's much more FUUUUUUN!!! bickering between tea partiers and OWSers.
How conveeeeenient - how distracting. Meanwhile, as America bickers, our freedoms slip away, and wealth and power are stripped from The People, and, as the founding fathers feared the most, consolidated in the hands of the few.
I believe that people who bring their firearms to Tea Party protests where there is no threat of lethal violence, nor where the primary subject of the protest is gun control, and where there is a heavy anti-government message, do so to provoke and threaten. The message is that their greivances are are supported by "might", not "right".
There are many instances of Tea Party organizers encouraging folks to carry their guns to gatherings, where allowed by law. Have OWS organizers made similar encouragements? Have OWS organizers encouraged rioting and property damage?
One group says "Come to our peaceful gathering armed!" The other does not. Which group is more "extreme?"
Perhaps it appears that you can't get to the modern world from there. But notice that my original question was not what kind of economic order the Founders established, but what kind of order they contemplated establishing. Had I phrased it the first way, you (and the historians) would have been right. What I have been talking about was what the Framers contemplated. What they actually did was something quite different.
Clearly he is talking about what was at times contemplated. What they actually set up is free market capitalism. They were wise men that contemplated many things, and decided on what they though was best.
Buellkowski,
Are you willing to vouch for every single individual who openly totes their firearms to Tea Party gatherings?
What's wrong with carrying firearms? Have you heard of the second amendment?
Why bring guns to a peaceful protest? Guns are for lawful defense. What lethal threat at a peaceful rally are these folks defending themselves against?
The presence of firearms at Tea Party gatherings is not defensive, it's provocative. It conveys a threatening message that I find distasteful at protests protected by the rule of law.
If they pulled it out and aimed it at someone, that would be provocation. Simply carrying it is defensive. Considering some of the violence that was committed against Tea Party protesters by Unions, I would definitely say it's defensive.
Granted, I don't find that to be in good taste for public speech, but it's still a far cry from dancing on the US flag. Not even close.
I believe that people who bring their firearms to Tea Party protests where there is no threat of lethal violence, nor where the primary subject of the protest is gun control, and where there is a heavy anti-government message, do so to provoke and threaten. The message is that their greivances are are supported by "might", not "right".
I would say that there were valid concerns for protecting themselves from attack.
Plus lots of posters and t-shirts for sale celebrating mass murderers.
I too find it unwise to carry openly at a protest. I'd be far more comfortable with that at a Tea Party Event than at an Occupy one. I'm pretty blase about it at gun shows and my daily visit to the Jail. ( for work )
Citizens have every right to carry arms, though in many places there are laws forbidding open carry. Locally, even allowing another to see a "suspicious bulge" much less the ( gasp! ) handle of a gun can get you arrested. ( no, it's not constitutional, but Sen. Paul fans should know that there are serious problems with Illegal government actions. )
As far as the Tea party folk and the Occupy folk agreeing? I'm not in either so...I'll guess. Let me know how close I am.
I bet both have objection to the bribes politicians take to give preferential treatment to companies and special interest groups.
One wants less government ( not NONE, don't be silly ) the other wants more.
One wants to try and wean us from the nanny state, the other wants President Mommy to pay the bills for THEM and take the money from those the Current President often belittles and blames for the worlds ills.
So, both unhappy with an unfair status quo. A disagreement on what parts they are unhappy about, and certainly diametric opposition to the desired results.
