skymir's tags:
skymir's most popular posts:
skymir reads (5):
Who's reading skymir (3):

Why the second amendment? LETS ASK THE FOUNDING FATHERS!

skymir posted on Sep 27, 2007 | views: 641 | Tags: politics, firearms, founding fathers, philosophy, Ad hominem arguement, gun rights, weapons, civil rights, Guns

(ok last one today, I promises :)

 

This is especially for Americans but should be of interest to all.

 

Anyone ever try and tell that popular gun ownership among the civilians was not at all what the founding fathers had in mind?

 Or that the second amendment term: “the people” was somehow only meant to apply only to the National Guard?

 

In general terms I am talking about arguments that The Constitution will not defend the right of the people to keep firearms for defense from the government and the violent.

 

Well I see arguments like that almost as often as I see idiot drivers, so here are a few quotes to help people like that see the error of their ways:

.

George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence."

Thomas Jefferson: "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. ... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Patrick Henry:"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.

Samuel Adams:"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

George Mason:"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

Thomas Jefferson: "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

Tench Coxe: "Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize ... the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

Thomas Jefferson: "One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."

Thomas Jefferson:"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

Thomas Jefferson: "None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important."

Alexander Hamilton: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all forms of positive government."

Thomas Jefferson: "Most codes extend their definitions of treason to acts not really against one's country. They do not distinguish between acts against the government, and acts against the oppressions of the government. The latter are virtues, yet have furnished more victims to the executioner than the former, because real treasons are rare; oppressions frequent. The unsuccessful strugglers against tyranny have been the chief martyrs of treason laws in all countries."

George Mason: "Who are the militia? They consist of the whole people, except a few public officers."

Thomas Jefferson: "It astonishes me to find... [that so many] of our countrymen... should be contented to live under a system which leaves to their governors the power of taking from them the trial by jury in civil cases, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce, the habeas corpus laws, and of yoking them with a standing army. This is a degeneracy in the principles of liberty... which I [would not have expected for at least] four centuries."

Thomas Jefferson: "I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances."

 

Kinda sad to see how far we have come in some regards…

 

 



send to a friend del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • beyondtheveil said on Sep 27, 2007....
    The last documentary I saw stated the founding fathers had no intention of the second amendment applying to private gun ownership

    I wish I could remember who produced that show.
  • skymir said on Sep 28, 2007....
    so do I...that would be an embarrassing doc. Or to be fair, it could be an extremely impressive argument. let me know if you remember, thanks
  • bewaresmoothtalkers said on Sep 28, 2007....
    Skymir........Your arguement smacks of the same logic used to expell religion from anything remotely to do with Government, the So-called Constitutional right to have an abortion or the use of the 1st amendment to cover any & all things a person does or says as being covered under this amendment.
    The Second Amendment is in reality a two part amendment, The first part is saying that each individual state has a right to have it's own standing Militia-( National Guard) but not a standing Army. The second part is no american will have to worry about the State or Federal Government trying to take away their personal firearms. May I also point out, that outside of the city, most people got their fresh meat from hunting wild animals. The introduction of large numbers of domestic animals for the consumption by people had not become wide spread. Last but not least is the Right to Protect ones family & self from harm- "There was no 911 back during our founding fathers days!" BST
  • buckrogers said on Sep 28, 2007....
    The second amendment is clearly a conscription law.  The "right to bear arms" was given to the Irish to fight the Scots in order to save the British lads from the ravages of war.  The amendment was written when frontiersmen were fighting the Indians and needed to assemble a group of men quickly for their defense.  "Arms" can be anything from rakes and shovels to B-52 bombers...not necessarily guns.  The NRA is strictly a propaganda machine for gun makers to sell the idea that the second amendment gives people the "right" to own guns. 
     
    Guns are truly needed by people in law enforcement and in other areas were personal protection is justified.  The problem is not the gun per se, but the people owning them and their intention for having guns.  Hunters and collectors should be able to own guns, but not unsupervised teenagers or people with criminal records.  Personal ownership of a gun should be a "privilage," not a "right."              
  • bloc said on Sep 28, 2007....
    I always find it odd that discussions on this issue rarely quote the 2nd amendment in full. Here it is.

    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    Another issue that people don't raise is the use of the term "arms" instead of "guns". Does the term "arms" include missiles, tanks, bombers, nukes, etc? If not, why not?

    @bst
    I'm not sure I agree with your parsing of the 2nd amendment. Unfortunately it makes no sense to me so I can't put out an alternate parsing. I don't see how the militia part is separate when it's in the same sentence as the part on guns and is not a complete sentence on it's own.
  • skymir said on Sep 28, 2007....

    @BST: ja I have to say I not sure about the point your trying to make or my error. But I do think I have a grasp of your last two sentences…I think

     To say that the second is no longer relevant because hunting in unnecessary is to miss the point of the idea. There is a hell of a lot more too self reliance then hunting.

     Last but not least is the Right to Protect ones family & self from harm- "There was no 911 back during our founding fathers days!"

     Right of protection, ok that I agree with. But is that quote meant to say that because the constabulary is more powerful the people need less protection? I suppose that’s true after all, indeed fascist nations are very safe places and have massive police forces. So long as you don’t count crimes against humanity.

     Over all I get the impression that maybe you are trying to argue the second amendment irrelevant or obsolete. But I must be wrong with that observation because a simple look at worlds affairs will show the effects of an armed populace.

     

     

    @Bloc: that true about the text, but I just figured everyone would know. It is the shortest amendment I think.

     And yes a reasonable limit has to be found, but I just wanted to provide a frame work for such a limit but showing what many of the fathers had in mind.

     

    @Buck: that is an interesting historical view pint, thanks for making me think! And yes there is much fault with the NRA. You can lose other rights by committing felonies, so I don’t think that we need to start calling a:2 a privilege. Actually, I think that you hit the nail on the head with your statement about personal protection. I would say that personal protection is always justified, and that the citizen needs protection from the criminal in the gutter or the criminal in the power seat.

  • skymir said on Sep 28, 2007....

    Well! that went over well. so I though i would share a few other things. I must admit I have not diligently checked all the facts on this so if someone finds an error let me know please. 

     

    The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929.
    From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, exterminated.

    Turkey established gun control in 1911. From 1915 to 1917,
    1.5 Million Armenians, exterminated.

    Germany established gun control in 1938.
    From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others, exterminated.

    China established gun control in 1935.
    From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, exterminated.

    Guatemala established gun control in 1964.
    From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, exterminated.

    Uganda established gun control in 1970.
    From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, exterminated.

    Cambodia established gun control in 1956.
    From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, exterminated.

    Known people killed in the 1900s shortly after there right to bare firearms was striped from them.

  • mobil said on Sep 28, 2007....
    Only an idiot would question the second amendment, after all it is the SECOND amendment !
     
    No tanks, missles or nukes around when this was written, just small arms. Which includes anything from a .17 cal to an elephant rifle and shotguns. That's it.
     
    The founding fathers wisely thought it important for the general population to have small arms (guns) avaiable to them and for a whole bunch of reasons. Let's not play games with it.
  • bewaresmoothtalkers said on Sep 28, 2007....
    Skymir.......Sorry! I have a tendency to use a shotgun instead of a rifle with a scope to hit my point. My  point was; modern day intellects keep trying to claim what our founding fathers were thinking when they sat down & wrote our Bill of Rights & the Declaration of Independence. I seriously doubt there was more then a couple men that wanted religion banned from the government. they only wanted to make sure the gov't didn't try to make everyone follow the same religion. The First amendment was to insure the people had the right to speak-out aganist gov't & to have open political discourse. Finally, I doubt back in those days if you could have found a family that didn't own a firearm. So, lets drop all the BS about references to modern day weapons. The point being, each state if called upon to raise a militia, to either defend their own sovergnity or to assist the Federal gov't would know each person could provide their own firearm. My question to everyone; Has anyone ever seen a police officer prevent a criminal from committing a crime? or better yet, has anyone ever heard of a criminal that would not carry a concealed weapon because it was aganist the law?   BST 
  • bloc said on Sep 28, 2007....
    @mobil
    I agree with your sentiment, but I think your logic can lead to ...

    I don't understand you precise view. Are you saying that we should only be allowed to have "arms" similar to those that existed when the 2nd amendment was written? Did semi automatic weapons exist at the time? Did cannons? How would one decide which technical advances are allowed vs those that aren't? What about high powered sniper rifles?

    @skymir and mobil
    How can the following quote lead to the conclusion that the founding fathers were only discussing small arms?

    Thomas Jefferson:"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

    If the purpose is to protect ourselves from our government wouldn't we need arms equivalent to those of our government? I agree with your conclusions, but I don't see how that conclusion can be drawn from the 2nd amendment itself or from the writings of the founders on the subject.
  • bewaresmoothtalkers said on Sep 28, 2007....
    Skymir..... those negative remarks were not aimed at you. BST
  • bloc said on Sep 28, 2007....
    @bst
    "I seriously doubt there was more then a couple men that wanted religion banned from the government. they only wanted to make sure the gov't didn't try to make everyone follow the same religion."

    I'm reading a good book on this subject. American Gospel by Jon Meacham. It's a good balanced tak and I highly recommend it.

    regarding the 2nd amendment, I'm not an anti gun liberal. I'm simply trying to understand how the 2nd amendment should be interpreted. You said, "So, lets drop all the BS about references to modern day weapons." How is it b.s. to try and determine the limits? Machine guns are modern day weapons, do you believe citizens should not be allowed to own them? Hell, semi automatic weapons were invented after the 2nd amendment. Should those not be allowed? Where should the line be drawn and why? Is this really a b.s. question? 
  • mobil said on Sep 28, 2007....
    You slice everything to thin bloc, and no we wouldn't need arms equivalent. People many, governement few.
  • bloc said on Sep 28, 2007....
    "People many, governement few."

    True, but in this case we don't necessarily need guns either ;) To be serious, someone has to "slice it thin". You can't go into the supreme court and say, "your honors it's simply common sense that we should be allowed handguns and not nukes". For two reasons, we're still left with the question of where to draw the line, and, secondly, our legal system has to be based on more than random peoples common sense.
  • mobil said on Sep 28, 2007....
    Jesus bloc, I think this guy skymar spelled things out pretty good above don't you? I just can't nit pick for days over this shit, it's not how I do things, ok?
  • bloc said on Sep 28, 2007....
    did he spell it out? I just reread it and I'm still left wondering where we should draw the line. Where would you draw the line? Are automatic guns out? Are .50 cals out? 
  • skymir said on Sep 28, 2007....

    Block: "If the purpose is to protect ourselves from our government wouldn't we need arms equivalent to those of our government?"  No we would not. Iraq, Afghanistan, every guerrilla war ever. Right?

    BST: I understand it’s all good :) I think that your over analyses is valid. I would just add one qualifier: with the expansion of the fed and the decay of states right the second amendment interpretations that apply to the right of the individual is more important then ever.  And I do think that the quotes I presented imply the right of the individual to rise up ageist the government.

  • skymir said on Sep 28, 2007....
    (clears thought) speaking of spelling:it is Skymir. LOL

     and no i don't think i have drawn the line. I just wanted to present the quotes of the founders.
    :)
  • bloc said on Sep 28, 2007....
    and my name is spelled 'bloc' ;)
    you are correct we wouldn't need equivalent, but would we need them at all? I'll argue till I'm blue in the face that the civil rights movement would have been less successful if they'd used guns!
    But if we start with the assumption that "arms" rights are based on the idea of protecting ourselves from our government then what justification do we have for limiting "arms" and for deciding where to draw the line?
  • dyingman said on Sep 28, 2007....

    Amazing post.

    I don't own a gun, nor have I any wish to.  I have concerns about their down side, but don't see any if, ands, or buts about teh 2nd amendment.  We can change it if we want to, but those who claim it doesn't say individual private citizens can have weapons are grasping at straws.

     

  • bloc said on Sep 28, 2007....
    @dyingman
    what does the part about a militia mean?
  • bewaresmoothtalkers said on Sep 28, 2007....
    Skymir, Mobil......My last point, concerning the 2nd amendment. We all will agree that the Shot heard around the world was the so-called start of the Revolution. Americans should remember those men that came when called to stand aganist the British, They were the Minute-men, when the call went out, they grabbed their guns & came running. The Founding fathers knew this, that was why they included that in the Bill of Rights. Our problem now is just what Bloc wants to do, have certain groups of people interpret the Founding Fathers the way they say it was meant to be. Heaven help any of us who would use Common Sense to argue aganist them. They have PHD's, Drs or some other letters after their names that makes them right & the rest of us are just unwashed heathens. BST
  • bloc said on Sep 28, 2007....
    I have no idea why you want to take pot shots at me for asking reasonable questions. You could tell us where you'd draw the line and how that fits into your interpretation of the 2nd amendment and the founding fathers various statements.
  • skymir said on Sep 28, 2007....

    @ bloc (what I need practice: B…L…O…C…K damn it!, once more: B…L…O…C… got it!)

    Yes, I am in no possession to advise people on spelling, you see: I learned to spell phonetically so there for I never learned how to spell.

     I am afraid I will have to disappoint you today, I am not going to try and draw the line here and now. And I am not going to argue with you on the civil right statement. It is true that if one is trying to win respect as a man as opposed to an ape then violence won’t work.

     But I would be interested to know where others besides my self draw the line.

    @dyingman: welcome! for me what truly cements the necessity of civil firearms is the second set of numbers i put up. i honestly would love to live in a gun less free state, but those things are just not compatible.

  • mobil said on Sep 28, 2007....
    I think those interpretations are made by the courts, private citizens can't own fully automatic weapons, and scores of other restrictions already on the books direct the second amendment in a certain direction and that direction is mostly toward what was intended by the founders.
     
    The NRA is the guardian of the Second Amendment and I've belonged since I was twelve years old.
  • bloc said on Sep 28, 2007....
    does the NRA believe that automatic weapons should be banned?
  • kelly said on Sep 29, 2007....
    "...or the use of the 1st amendment to cover any & all things a person does or says..." 

    The first amendent does not protect against slanderous speech or libelous writing, nor does it protect against speech that incites to riot.

    " My  point was; modern day intellects keep trying to claim what our founding fathers were thinking when they sat down & wrote our Bill of Rights & the Declaration of Independence." 

    So, instead we should listen to modern day dolts?  I think NRA types just can't wait until they get to shoot someone in defense of something.  Rather than working to keep our system fair and uncorrupt from the beginning they'd rather keep silent about illegal wiretaps and suspension of habeas corpus until they get to feel the adolescent justification of someone "defending their freedom" by using guns.
  • mobil said on Sep 29, 2007....
    Bloc, There are semi automatic weapons and fully automatic, yes to semi and no to fully. I believe that's the NRA's stand on this Bloc.
     
     
    Kelly, I see you have failed to as yet free your head from your ass, good luck with that.
  • bloc said on Sep 29, 2007....
    @mobil
    suggesting that intellectual endeavors are a negative activity is having ones head up ones ass. Read BST's comments and compare them to kelly's
  • bewaresmoothtalkers said on Sep 29, 2007....
    Bloc....you & Kelly ought to take your dog & pony show on the road. You all sure do make alot of stupid or silly remarks. You both must have come from one of those High Brow Institutes of learning where you get a complete dose of anyone that doesn't agree with me must be; whats Kelly call them-( modern day dolts). Bloc, you & Kelly must get your talking points from Moveon.Org. Oh! by the way Kelly, what do you call it, when someone claims President Bush is responsible for the attack on the twin towers or when he was accused of helping  members of Ben ladin's family to escape the U.S. Bloc as usual, you ask a silly question that has nothing to do with the discussion. "Does the NRA believe auto-matic weapons should be banned?" You either know what your talking about or you don't. In order to even possess a auto-matic weapon in this country, you must have a FEDERAL license. Mobil, you see what I meant about Bloc now. BST 
  • bloc said on Sep 29, 2007....
    I said, "Does the NRA believe auto-matic weapons should be banned?"

    bst said, "You either know what your talking about or you don't. In order to even possess a auto-matic weapon in this country, you must have a FEDERAL license."

    You either understand english or you don't. Bst clearly doesn't, maybe one of those high brow institutions could help him ;) Seriously, let's parse bst's nonse. I asked if the NRA believes that automatic weapons should be banned. I don't know how to state this anymore clearly. I'm asking what the NRA believes, I am not asking what is legal, I am asking what the NRA believes. Now ask yourselves if bst's response makes any sense. Here it is.

    "You either know what your talking about or you don't. In order to even possess a auto-matic weapon in this country, you must have a FEDERAL license. Mobil, you see what I meant about Bloc now."

    Does his response relate to my question in anyway?

    Sadly, bst is incapable of an intelligent discussion. I asked some important and reasonable questions at the beginning of this post. Where do we draw the line on "arms"? How does that line fit into the 2nd amendment and the views of our founding fathers? For some odd reason BST decided, as usual, to insult people rather than have an intelligent discussion.
  • bewaresmoothtalkers said on Sep 30, 2007....

    I'll make it simple even for you BLOC, What the hell does what the NRA believe have to do with the SECOND AMENDMENT.( SoWhat if the NRA believes every american should be able to own an auto-matic weapon.) Gee Bloc; I'm so sorry, I must have lost my head ! What was I thinking, any intelligent person like yourself would see that asking about what the NRA believes, really does shed light on what our Founding Fathers meant when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. I bow to your superior intellect. Your sharp questions really showed me ! How could I be so stupid as to think a simple straight forward sentence as the 2nd amendment was really that simple. It takes someone of you IQ to really figure it all out. Damn I think I'll go ask for a refund from my College!!! BST

  • bloc said on Sep 30, 2007....
    mobil said,
    "The NRA is the guardian of the Second Amendment and I've belonged since I was twelve years old."

    After mobil brought up the NRA I asked for a clarification on their views. What's funny is that your insult about bringing up the NRA is actually directed at mobil not me. Maybe mobil will see your true colors now.

    Rather than call me names you could tell us where you think the line on "arms" should be drawn and how that fits into your interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Acting like a child is only making you look foolish.
  • bewaresmoothtalkers said on Sep 30, 2007....
    Well Bloc maybe your right about acting like a kid, after all when an adult ask me a question that I think is stupid, I just laugh at them & walk away. Now you are trying to use some lame excuse for taking the discussion the way you think it should go. Like you know-( the kid that says it's my football & this is how we're going to play the game & if you don't like it, I'll take my ball & go home) I hate to tell you Bloc I'm a member of the NRA also. Each member has their own personal views & each joins the NRA for their own reasons. Unlike you Liberals, we don't try to disect each little word someone writes or says. Most of us see the NRA as a lobbist group just like all the rest that keeps an eye on Congess to let us know when someone in the Gun Control crowd trys to sneak some new bill thru Congress. But I can't speak for Mobil or anyone else in the NRA, thats just how I see it. Anyway, Your suppose to be the great Civil Liberties protector,so I find your whole arguement is nothing more then BS. When you start having discussions & breaking down the other Amendments like you've done with the most simple & straight forward amendment. Then I will stop treating you like a kid. You have a nice day or what ever you have.  BST
  • bloc said on Sep 30, 2007....
    You are right that any group is composed of individuals who may not see eye to eye on everything. However, the purpose of the NRA is to have a somewhat uniform opinion on gun rights. I'd asked mobil to explain the NRA's position because I don't know what it is. Seems like a fair and reasonable question.

    You said that my argument is B.S. but I haven't made an argument. I've only asked questions. I think you are assuming what my view is since I haven't stated it.

    You call the 2nd amendment the most straight forward, but you haven't answered my simple question on the matter. Where is the line drawn on "arms" (i.e. which should be illegal) and how that fits with the wording of the 2nd amendment and the statements of the founders. Do you want to have a discussion or just name calling?
  • mobil said on Sep 30, 2007....
    Bloc, the Second Amendment stands on it's own merits. Congress tries to add or subtract from it. The arms that are protected under it are governed by Congress and the courts and the amendment itself.
     
    Arguements ensue and laws are enacted like the gun control act of 1968, The NRA tries to protect the Second Amendment by lobbying Congress. The NRA pretty much dismantled that act.
     
    So, that's pretty much the way the amendment is changed, enforced and protected and in there lies what is and what is not legal for private citizens. tada
  • bloc said on Sep 30, 2007....
    exactly, and it seems we all agree that all arms are not protected. It seems to me that we can have a much more civilized debate once we understand that we all believe a line needs to be drawn and that the 2nd amendment doesn't protect all arms.
    seanR is the only person I've met that says that all arms should be legal :/
  • skymir said on Oct 01, 2007....

    Every time the state of weapon art changes what we need to “bare arms” as the founders intended changes. So, in trying to pin down an unambiguous law that will work in every age of the republic we can not use any technical definitions of types of weapons. This is an example of why a magazine limit would be ineffective. you may need to C&P this link.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuOOeq8uki4

     

    That leaves us with the possible uses of the weapons. It is clear that the founders intended us to have the ability to provide for our selves and defend our selves from any human threat with out giving a madman the power to wipe out a city

     

    I will be thinking about a way to phrase such a law.

  • lfbno7 said on Oct 01, 2007....
    It's the rebel who favors weapon possession, and the one in power who doesn't.  look at okinawa.  when it was invaded by china, the chinese forbade weapons to the okinawans.

    what else is new.  it's all very predictable that people in rebellion would demand weapons, and people in power would forbid them.  i wouldn't take the "founding fathers" as the most objective people to quote on this issue.
  • mobil said on Oct 01, 2007....
    It appears the Second Amendment is coming before this new conservative Supreme Court...........It's thought these jurists might interpret it in a way that not been done in the past.......should prove interesting
  • bloc said on Oct 01, 2007....
    @mobil
    I'm wasn't aware of that. Why's it coming up to the supreme court?
  • TinSoldier said on Nov 24, 2007....
    Ah, a Second Amendment argument. That's right up there with the abortion issue and alignment arguments in D&D as post magnets.

    My own unprofessional opinion is this:

    The Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear individual arms with the expectation that every individual would be a part of the militia. Which is not an unreasonable expectation.

    Until the 14th Amendment was passed, then I would have no problem with cities restricting people from possessing firearms within the city limits. Nowadays -- not so much.

    And lastly, I think that the 2nd Amendment applies to personal or individual arms, not to crew-served weapons and the like. Which necessarily removes nukes and bombers and most fully automatic guns from the equation.

    bloc -- it's coming up to the Supreme Court because of DC's handgun ban.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21901379/

Comment on "Why the second amendment? LETS ASK THE FOUNDING FATHERS!"


(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Comment Anonymously

Do Your Representatives Really Represent You?

ALIENated posted 3 days ago | views: 76 | Tags: politics, idiots, Dems-Rule, anarchism, morons, nutjobs, ALIENation

Do they?

... read entire post 13 comments

Climate Scientists Abandon Science

curmudgeon posted 2 days ago | views: 66 | Tags: politics, hypocrisy, climate change, environment, Science, global warming
Science and propaganda merge in global warming "debate."... read entire post 12 comments

Thanksgiving Sucks?

pickersplock posted 6 days ago | views: 69 | Tags: politics, thanksgiving, life, wisdom, man-cook, huff, exploiting children
Every week, I delve into our local city entertainment/op-ed/newspaper.... read entire post 9 comments

Our Lives Are About To Change Dramatically

ALIENated posted 4 days ago | views: 82 | Tags: ALIENation, politics, heathcare, health insurance, nurses, debate, Obamacare

And no one even seems to care.

... read entire post 12 comments

Follow The Money

ALIENated posted 2 days ago | views: 61 | Tags: politics, auto industries, knobs in congress, Obama, liars, numbskulls, ALIENation

Even Chris Mathews at MSNBC is starting to question Obama.

... read entire post 6 comments