Obama's secret assassins

[gobuffs10]

Just read this today. Sorry the Guardian isn't as respectable as everyone likes, but I respect Greenwald's journalism, and his summary and analysis are pretty spot on. This isn't what I voted for, but I guess we don't get to have our candidates tailor made, do we?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memo

And traderjake, CNN is no more respectable than Info Wars. Not everything is a conspiracy; it's just more convenient for our brains to create narrative when there seemingly isn't any.

 

[delldude]

Just read this today. Sorry the Guardian isn't as respectable as everyone likes, but I respect Greenwald's journalism, and his summary and analysis are pretty spot on. This isn't what I voted for, but I guess we don't get to have our candidates tailor made, do we?

http://www.guardian....l-list-doj-memo

And traderjake, CNN is no more respectable than Info Wars. Not everything is a conspiracy; it's just more convenient for our brains to create narrative when there seemingly isn't any.

First post of the thread addresses your article. Not what you voted for?
So much for that old rag, the Constitution.

 

[KCFlyer]

Dell....it's been a while, but didn't you support tha Patriot Act, that bowled over at least 3 of the amendments in that old rag?

 

[delldude]

Dell....it's been a while, but didn't you support tha Patriot Act, that bowled over at least 3 of the amendments in that old rag?

I'm afraid you'll have to swift boat me on that one...Like John Kerry, I was for it before I was against it.

 

[xUT]

Yeah....he should have stuffed a potato down his pants, landed on an aircraft carrier, strutted across the deck with his helmet in hand under a sign that said "We done, bro".

Rumor is that brother is hung... no potato needed... 😛

 

[KCFlyer]

I'm afraid you'll have to swift boat me on that one...Like John Kerry, I was for it before I was against it.

Thanks for your honesty. I am trying hard to understand this concern for the constitution today when, back then, it was us lefty liberals who were talking about the constitution and being dismissed as terrorist supporting America haters for speaking up. Maybe they would have listened better if we had used guns.

 

[traderjake]

Not everything is a conspiracy; it's just more convenient for our brains to create narrative when there seemingly isn't any.

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

Was there a conspiracy to kill JFK or is the government and new media telling us the truth?

Not everything is a conspiracy but the important stuff is usually planned.

 

[delldude]

Thanks for your honesty. I am trying hard to understand this concern for the constitution today when, back then, it was us lefty liberals who were talking about the constitution and being dismissed as terrorist supporting America haters for speaking up. Maybe they would have listened better if we had used guns.

The lefty liberals of then have been replaced by Constitution hating progressives, KC.

 

[KCFlyer]

The lefty liberals of then have been replaced by Constitution hating progressives, KC.

Nope...we've always been the same. The fact that those of us who screamed about unwarranted search and seizure might wonder why on earth the average citizen needs an assault rifle with a 100 round magazine doesn't mean we don't value the constitution. It just means that we don't think our forefathers every foresaw a musket that could shoot off 30 rounds in under 3 seconds.

 

[EastUS1]

....we don't think our forefathers every foresaw....

You've then arrogantly taken it upon yourselves to imagine you're necessarily brighter and wiser people than said forefathers.....Well? Rapid firing weapons were conceived of as far back as Da Vinci's time. To even first make any assumption that those who framed the Constitution, and themselves acted the midwives for the birthing of America, would magically change their minds about their core beliefs and principles today requires, to my mind, a level of arrogance that's nothing short of astounding!

 

[KCFlyer]

Arrogant? No moreso that Lincoln envisioning a man on the moon. They might have been concieved of, but they didn't exist. Did our forefathers foresee nukes? Should we be allowed to own them? Just what kind of armament does a "well regulated militia" outside the US armed forces need? Or did our forefathers NOT foresee an army?

 

[EastUS1]

Arrogant? No moreso that Lincoln envisioning a man on the moon. They might have been concieved of, but they didn't exist. Did our forefathers foresee nukes? Should we be allowed to own them? Just what kind of armament does a "well regulated militia" outside the US armed forces need? Or did our forefathers NOT foresee an army?

"One of the first known ancestors of multi-shot weapons was created by James Puckle, a London lawyer, who patented what he called "The Puckle Gun" on May 15, 1718. It was a design for a 1 inch (in.) (25.4 mm) caliber, flintlock revolver cannon able to fire 9 rounds before reloading"

Note: 1718, well before the Constitution was ever even imagined and "able to fire 9 rounds before reloading" Don't go with the old bit of assuming ignorance amongst the finest minds in the then Colonies and likely the entire world btw, as to what technology was evolving around them.

It soon progressed that "In the early and mid-nineteenth century, a number of rapid-firing weapons appeared which offered multi-shot fire, and a number of semi-automatic weapons as well as volley guns. Volley guns (such as the Mitrailleuse) and double barreled pistols relied on duplicating all parts of the gun. Pepperbox pistols did away with needing multiple hammers but used multiple barrels. Revolvers further reduced this to only needing a pre-prepared magazine using the same barrel and ignitions. However, like the Puckle gun, they were still only semiautomatic."

"The coffee-mill gun of the Civil War featured both automatic loading and single barrel, only separated functionally from the modern machine gun by being hand-powered rather than using cartridges."

Again, by just the Civil War's time: "only separated functionally from the modern machine gun by being hand-powered rather than using cartridges."

Need we continue?

http://www.newworlde...-firing_weapons

PS: Should a weapon patented in 1718 nowadays be deemed an "assault" piece due it's being able to fire 9 times without reloading?

 

[KCFlyer]

"One of the first known ancestors of multi-shot weapons was created by James Puckle, a London lawyer, who patented what he called "The Puckle Gun" on May 15, 1718. It was a design for a 1 inch (in.) (25.4 mm) caliber, flintlock revolver cannon able to fire 9 rounds before reloading"

Note: 1718, well before the Constitution was ever even imagined and "able to fire 9 rounds before reloading" Don't go with the old bit assuming ignorance, amongst the finest minds in the then Colonies, as to what technology was evolving around them.

"In the early and mid-nineteenth century, a number of rapid-firing weapons appeared which offered multi-shot fire, and a number of semi-automatic weapons as well as volley guns. Volley guns (such as the Mitrailleuse) and double barreled pistols relied on duplicating all parts of the gun. Pepperbox pistols did away with needing multiple hammers but used multiple barrels. Revolvers further reduced this to only needing a pre-prepared magazine using the same barrel and ignitions. However, like the Puckle gun, they were still only semiautomatic.
The coffee-mill gun of the Civil War featured both automatic loading and single barrel, only separated functionally from the modern machine gun by being hand-powered rather than using cartridges."

http://www.newworlde...-firing_weapons

Need we continue?

Wow...nine whole rounds. Did our forefathers ever concieve of being able to fire 9 rounds in just over a second?

 

[delldude]

Nope...we've always been the same. The fact that those of us who screamed about unwarranted search and seizure might wonder why on earth the average citizen needs an assault rifle with a 100 round magazine doesn't mean we don't value the constitution. It just means that we don't think our forefathers every foresaw a musket that could shoot off 30 rounds in under 3 seconds.

Do some research.........if you ID yourself as a progressive then you don't understand what you think your party is all about.

 

[EastUS1]

Wow...nine whole rounds. Did our forefathers ever concieve of being able to fire 9 rounds in just over a second?

They were brilliant people, often much in love with science and gaining understanding of the world. They conceived of a nation and form of government nowhere else before seen in all of human history. I'd put little past what else they might well have envisioned. No matter here:

"Did our forefathers ever concieve of being able to fire 9 rounds in just over a second?" Well...I'd certainly think so! Historical precedent for such weaponry had existed for centuries by then. Do you truly imagine them to have been just a bunch of purely parochial putzes? Many were schooled in things military and had a fair, to say the least, knowledge of appropriate issues from history:

"Organ Guns
Organ Guns (or War Carts) were primitive, yet effective, multi-chambered and multi-barreled monstrosities. As early as 1339, a firearm called the Ribauld, or Ribauldequin, was mentioned as a having several iron tubes that were arranged to fire stone projectiles simultaneously. This weapon was purportedly used to good advantage by Edward III in one of England’s wars with France by blasting an opening in the unyielding ranks of heavily armored pikemen who were to keep the cavalry from the bowmen." http://sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=1241

"Wow...nine whole rounds." So then: What SHOULD the "magic number" be? Can I take it I now have your full blessings for at least 9 round weapons? 😉

Personally?...I AM willing to stop slightly short of this though. 😉 http://aviationhumor...-be-infringed/#