Politics and religion.

[Edwina's Secretary]

I was merely defending my country from the folks that live here and find it such a ghastly place to live in.

Are you picking on those people who complain about the government all the time???

[Grace]

This puts a whole new light on those carrying guns in Phoenix. From the Arizona Republic -

by Scott Wong - Aug. 19, 2009 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

The protester carrying an AR-15 rifle outside President Barack Obama's speech in Phoenix on Monday staged the "publicity stunt" with the help of two local Libertarian groups that have worked with the man on Ron Paul's presidential campaign.

Before attending a pro-Obama health-care reform rally outside the Phoenix Convention Center, the man who identified himself as "Chris" met with members of RP4409 and Freedom's Phoenix. That's according to Freedom's Phoenix Publisher Ernest Hancock, who is credited with coining and designing the logo for the "Ron Paul r3VOLution."

In a YouTube video, Chris displays his semi-automatic rifle which he says "aids me in my resistance efforts."

"We will forcefully resist people imposing their will on us through the strength of the majority with a vote," Chris later tells an Obama supporter in the video. "Just because you sic the government on people doesn't make it morally OK to steal money from people. Taxation is theft."

Chris declined to reveal information about himself. Hancock said he is a Valley resident, an independent conservative and a John Birch Society member.

Chris, who also had a 9mm pistol, was one of a dozen demonstrators openly carrying firearms to the rally, a display that drew national media attention. Under Arizona law, openly carrying firearms in public is legal.

Hancock told CNN's Rick Sanchez on Tuesday that the gun display was planned well in advance. Hancock met with a Phoenix police officer last week, informing him that he and others in his group planned to bring firearms.

When Sanchez suggested many people would see it as a "publicity stunt," Hancock responded: "Absolutely."

Ernest Hancock was once associated with a group called the Viper Militia. None of whom I would want as neighbors.

[Edwina's Secretary]

This puts a whole new light on those carrying guns in Phoenix. From the Arizona Republic -



Ernest Hancock was once associated with a group called the Viper Militia. None of whom I would want as neighbors.

Wow. truly frightening.

I need to get back to Chicago.....

[blue]

Wow. truly frightening.

I need to get back to Chicago.....

Standing up to your government is frightening?

Yeah no guns in Chicago.

[blue]

Dude,

I can see someone trading a Buick Grand National to get 4.5k (that you and I anted up for) - the car, restored, is worth twice that much and the idiot gov't. OKed them being scrapped.

UGH.............

The only American breweries are the micro jobs. Too expensive and hard to find......

Between the scams and Big Brother, only 20% of the C4C money has made it to the dealerships. When I find that link again Ill post it.

Micro brew is plentyfull and decently priced here in AK.

My issue is not with whether or not what these guys did was legal. It is whether or not it was stupid.

It is legal for the Philadelphia Eagles to hire Michael Vick.

But many think it is reprehensible ...thread

It is legal to tart up your daughter and parade her around...

But many think it is sick...thread

It is legal to own guns and assault rifles...

But to take those guns to a crowded public event when the president is speaking...

Is stupid...and sick and reprehensible.

Now exercising your Rights and obeying the Law is stupid...as well as sick and reprehensible. Got it.

Vick does not have a right to a job and the Eagles dont have a right to prevent Vick from working. Reprehensible or not, and I agree that it is, its not against any law I know of. The court of public opinion rules for Vick and the Eagles.

The day they make tarting up your daughter illegal and brings the charge of child endangerment/abuse cant come quick enough, untill that happens Ill just agree with that its reprehensible.

But to say exercising a Right and obeying the Law is stupid, that is reprehensible.

Having followed the last few pages of this thread intently, may I take this chance to applaud Edwina's Secretary. I think you are spot on in what you have to say.

Seeing how you are from England I can understand your agreement with ES. However this isnt England, our cultures reguarding firearms are very different. A government can controll its population easier if they are unarmed.

Having seen those pictures of the man with the rifle, or whatever it was, slung over his back, to me that is shocking and not normal. How civilisation can exist when people with giant weapons slung publically and casually over the shoulder are free to walk about in the streets, I don't know. They must pass little kids in the street, what do they think? That's it's alright to walk out of the house looking like you're going into battle?

Its very normal for the Swiss, but firearms in their culture are even more ingrained then in the USA. A person open carrying in Alaska wont get a second glance, the same person in California would be, at best arrested, and at worst shot for exercising their Right to do so.

A majority of, not all, of Alaskan kids are taught to respect firearms and firearm safety, and a majority, not all, of Californian kids are taught that firearms are evil and people that use them are evil. Those are generalizations, the exceptions only prove it as true.

It was mentioned somewhere that it's daft to fear an inanimate object. Honestly, I will fear a gun unless it's in the hands of a trained professional, i.e. the police. It is not inanimate when it's in the hands of someone you cannot trust.

Any object in the hands of somebody you cannot trust is a tool that can cause great harm to many people. The English dont even trust firearms to ordinary police officers if IRRC. It is insane to freak out when you see a firearm in a holster, or slung on someones back. If someone is brandishing any weapon, then it is OK to freak out.

I do have to admit having a semi auto AK 47 clone slung on my back in a high school was kinda wierd.

It may be legal to own a gun in those states and walk around with it like an accessory. But just how far is a photograph like that from the current scenes in Afghanistan?

The people with guns in Afghanistan, for the most part, arent trying to make a point to their government. They are making a point for whatever ruling tribe is in the area to the local population.

Dude,
Like, what is the gun law in England?

Stricter the CA.

I seem to remember that most of the Bobbies don't pack heat, so a picture of a citizen packing must really chill the soul?

The 'farness' of the pic and what goes on in Afghanistan is a stretch.

People in AFG are usually riding around in Toyota P/U, pointing THEIR guns at folks, threatening to cut off the thumbs of people who vote.

We look like a bunch of gun toting morons because all the people who are afraid of guns stretch the truth and panic when they see people packing heat.

The 'danger' of guns is the idiots who can't be trusted to handle-no, I take that back-it's the idiots who see a picture of a guy with a gun and begin to panic.

They don't trust themselves to handle a firearm, so the project their ineptness, mistrust and inability to even touch a gun, onto everyone they see who openly carries a firearm.

Most of the time it's an idiot with grudge, an idiot with no brains or stupid kids playing with guns that get killed.

A couple of weeks ago I saw a story where cops shot a guy to death - shot some 40 times - and officials were trying to figure out if the shooting was justified.

Plus you read about the SWAT cops that killed a baby carried in the arms os some idiot that was holed up in a business?

Most of the time we have to worry about the cops -trained professionals-who shoot a guy 40 times and if they happen to shoot and kill a bystander, oh well, too bad.

It's part of the job!

Fairly well summed up RICHARD.

The gun laws, as far as I am aware, lists most cartridge weapons under Section 1 - illegal firearms. You can apply for a gun license if you want to shoot game on your own land, go target shooting, or are in a field that requires it, i.e an armed police officer or large animal veterinary surgeon.

I dont need a license or a permit to own a firearm or to carry open or concealed.

You are not allowed to use such a fire-arm to attack or defend yourself, nor is it permitted outside of its designated area of use.

I would think it wont take to much to ban the carrying of knives or the licensing of martial arts training for self defense in the UK.

What I meant by the Afghanistan comment was more to do with principle than the technicalities of a terrorist regime.

Seeing how the English saw our Founding Fathers as a terrorist regime, I can see your point.

I don't consider myself an idiot for thinking that if I bumped into someone with a rifle on their back that I'd run a mile. No, I can't handle a firearm, but I also can't jump 10 feet in the air.

In England you probably would be an idiot if you didnt jump and run a mile. If you where in Arizona and bumped into someone with a firearm, Im sure you could laugh it off as a cultural diference.

In my lifetime, I can recall many tragedies involving firearms from the US. I can't recall half as much that have occurred in the UK. People walking into public areas and opening fire at random would shake this nation to its core.

The majority of the recent mass shootings in the USA took place in Gun Free Zones. Areas where the shooter/criminal is the only one with a firearm.

When Jean Charles de Menezes was shot on the London Underground in 2005, shortly after the London bombings, it certainly wasn't met with a reaction of 'oh well, it's part of the job!'. There have been endless enquiries and lawsuits and police apologies over the issue. But perhaps the difference is because the effect of guns is so much more abhorred over here, and, as you like to put it, we don't take kindly to 'packing heat'.

To Bobbies and the local government should have been grovelling for forgiveness for killing an innocent man, requardless of how the UK feels about firearms.

We are a nation of gun owners. THat will not change anytime soon.

I am sorry if you thought I was ragging on you. I was merely defending my country from the folks that live here and find it such a ghastly place to live in.

Wrong RICHARD. We are NOT a nation of gun owners. Where on earth do you come up with the stuff???

Our Country was started by the Shot Heard Around the World.

We are a nation DIVIDED on the issue of guns. Some people very strongly believe in gun ownership...some very strongly do not.

We are also a nation divided on the meaning of the words in the Constitution. Yes, yes...I know what you and your fellow travelers think it means.

But you do not speak for the entire nation...anymore than I do.

We are a nation of people where a minority who do not believe in the Constitution are trying to Divide the nation.

Are you picking on those people who complain about the government all the time???

So you didnt complain during the 8 years of ShrubCo?

Ernest Hancock was once associated with a group called the Viper Militia. None of whom I would want as neighbors.

He obviously wasnt a close enough associate or he would have been convicted as well.

Obama is an associate of known terrorists, Im sure you wouldnt have a problem with them as neighbors.