kicks up feet, pops a cold beer...

the comment delays are too much for me
forget what I type if the post deosn't appear
outrage fatigue, that weary half-french term...

J'accuse!

Noticing the first quote on your web-site was by Gen. Wesley Clark and then a subsequent posted quote by Nazi Hermann Georing, I remembered the striking similarity between one of his statements I heard regarding the renewal of the semi-auto ("assault") weapons ban:"... people who like assault weapons should join the United States Army, we have them" and this one:
"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the [Nazi] SS or SA--ordinary
citizens don't need guns, as their having them doesn't serve the state."
--Heinrich Himmler, head of the Nazi SS

"Assault weapoons" are full-auto which are carried by the Secret Service to protect the President, government officials and agents and Presidential candidates of the two major parties; hired guns PAID for by us. Yet Clark, his fellow Dems and Bush would deny citizens the CHOICE to semi-auto self-defense rifles--arrogant, elitist hypocrits all!! IF their gun control ideas are so good for us--then why don't they disarm and lead by example?

Thankfully that evil gun ban law sunsetted on Sept 2004 because of lack of support in the House; including my Congressman, Bart Gordon, who believes like the old true "liberal" Democrats:

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no
matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear
arms.... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against
arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote
in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."
-- Senator Hubert H. Humphrey

POLITICIANS WHO WANT TO DENY OUR RIGHT TO ARMED SELF-DEFENSE--BY THEIR HIRED GUNS, ARE UNFIT TO BE THE PUBLIC SERVANTS OF A FREE PEOPLE!!!

That's my comment above, but for some reason it left my name off.

Gee, Ron W, do you really, really, really need a machine gun? You can get one, ya know, if you really think you need one. Buy a stamp from the BATFags.

A friend of mine Stumbled you and now you are added to my blogroll.

Most glad to have found you.

oops, sorry for the double post, Noscript extension is giving me problems when I post.

Lurch,

I didn't mention "needing a machine gun".

Maybe you could address the attitude of the arrogant elitest polticians I did mention who have machine guns (full-auto weapons) PAID FOR BY US to protect them, but want to deny us the right to choose semi-auto weapons if we think we may have need of them.

I am for all of the Bill of Rights for ALL Citizens as written according to the rules of English grammar including "the equal protection of the laws" applying to all--even my public SERVANTS.

Aren't you?

Well, Ron, thanks for your exquisitely delicate parsing of your comments. Like Dear Leader, what was said told a different story than what is claimed was meant after the fact.

I'm all for equality, and i have no problem with an armed citizenry. It's just that i have actually used fully automatic weapons, and machine guns. (Unlike my brethren on the right side of the politcal spectrum.) And, frankly, I'm not convinced I NEED an M-60 or an AK47 in the civilian milieu.

Hey, Ron W. I'm more concerned about the GOP assaults on civil liberties than I am about my right to a machine gun. If you're worried about government oppression, vote Democrat.

Ron's blogging from an undisclosed bunker with a Koresh poster on the wall...

Here, trolly trolly trolly!

Lurch,

I agree with you on the GOP assault, but the Democrats also assault our rights. Like I said, Bush supported the Clinton SEMI-WEAPONS ban, but it was Republicans and Democrats who assaulted the First Amendment with their "Campaign Finance Reform" co-sponsred by McCain and Feingold, it was REPs and DEMs who assaulted the 4th and 5th Amendments with "the Patriot Act" which was already in place in all of its voluminous tyrannical glory when 9-11 happened. And it was DEMS and REPS who consolidated the police-state apparatus with the Dept of Homeland Security--something about which ex-Prez Clinton said, "we've been trying to get this for a long time."

Except for a precious few patriotic "renegades" in both parties, the assault on our rights is a bi-aprtisan deal! I pick and choose very carefully. For Prez, I "wasted my vote" as the establishment consels against and voted for the Constitution Party candidate or I could have also supported the Libertarian Party candidate too.

Tony,

I'm sorry, I actually responded to your comments mistaking them as being by Lurch.

Lurch,

Excuse me for attributing Tony's comments to you.

But Lurch, now I think we agree based on your last comments. When you say, "I'm not convinced I NEED..." then you are the one making the choice of need and with that, I agree!

Hey Ron, this is interesting. On the Planet Earth, where we breathe oxygen, we understand McCain Feingold didn't go far enough. THERE SHOULD BE NO - repeat - NO POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF ANY KIND TO ANY POLITICIAN. Lobbyists should be licensed. It should be ILLEGAL to lobby any politician of any party, at any time, in any place, other than in a small room, observed by a group of citizen observers. The group MUST be an even number, and purely bi-partisan. A documented attempt to influence a politician in any venue other than this should carry a mandatory Federal penalty of 10 years at hard labor, as a minimum term. A second conviction should carry a life sentence, as well as forfeiture of ALL financial assets. NOTE: These sentences should be applied equally to the brober and the bribee.

And, of yes. The campaign period should be no more than 20 days before an election. Fairness Doctrine re-established. Electronic and Dead Tree media required to donate 10% of their space/time to an equal representation of all candidates.

As for the Patriot Act, we both know that this evil law was rushed through by the Fascist Party in a naked power grab. There was no reading of the law, no debate, nor discussion. Parts of the law were not even distributed to the Congresscritters until after passage on an adrenalin-soaked wave of fear generated by Bu$hCo.

Don't make me slap you in the face with the dead mackeral of truth and reality, Ron.

Lurch,

Perhaps you didn't peruse my post (November 29-9:56 AM).I agree with all that so you can save your "dead Mackeral of truth" for some poltically petty partisan who only decries our rights being taken only when it's done by "the other party"--typical of many Republicans and Democrats; the Fascist Duopoly.

The Congress just voted to include blogging sites as part of the "Campaign Finance law" if the blog site even linked to a political candidate--making their assault against First Amendment rights even more intense. I think most of the Democrats were FOR that: disappointingly including my Rep. Bart Gordon , D-TN 6th District. Otherwise, I've been generally pleased with Bart Gordon--he did oppose the semi-auto weapons ban back when Clinton narrowly got it passed and he strongly opposed it's renewal again--helping its death--even with the support of the Bush White House.

Lurch,

Actually I should amend my comment to say I agree with you completely about the Patriot Act.

A long-time Tennessee politician and perennial Democratic gubenatorial candidate, John J. Hooker, makes a major point about ALL political contribuitons being bribes and thus illegal. I suppose eliminating all political contributions would do it.

But being for all of the Bill of Rights, I tend to oppose any law that violates any of them and those by which the government criminalizes our rights and choices.

It seems that "Campaign Finance Reform" should be called the "Incumbent Protection Act". It protects them and the news-opinion corporations and criminalizes small contributors who give to political organizations.

I would rather see the 17th Amendment repealed to eliminate 100 Senate elections and have a law that says no money vote without a ballot vote. That would eliminate most of their "big" money concerns.

Beyond that, I would like to see mandatory PUBLIC Presidential Debate(s) that would include ALL candidates who get on all 50 state ballots prior to some prescribed date say maybe 30 days before your "20 day election campaign"--which would be an OBJECTIVE standard for entry and would energize grassroots work in behalf of more candidates. The panel of questioners in such debates would be staffed by one person chosen by each partiicpating canddidate. Those things would make the process more truly DEMOCRATIC and help end the "the iron triangle" of the Democrats-Republicans-Media Corporations.

1. Timely
   
2. Strategery
   
3. Webb wins
   
4. Huh?
   
5. Bunnypants in Bagdad
   
6. Outage
   
7. Filthy Lucre Watch
   
8. Playing the numbers
   
9. My letter to Countdown
   
10. Jefferson's Nigerian Scams