Quote:
"Originally Posted by Dictionary.com
a·gen·da [uh-jen-duh]
noun formally a plural of , agendum but usually used as a singular with plural , a·gen·das or a·gen·da.
a list, plan, outline, or the like, of things to be done, matters to be acted or voted upon, etc.: The chairman says we have a lengthy agenda this afternoon."
So … is it ominous or not?
No, I’m pretty sure he means “Evil Librul Plot”.
I don’t know yet. Why don’t you tell us what you think their(hwhoever “they” may be) evil plot consists of, and where you got the information that “they” are secretly plotting this?
Since you don’t read my other posts in other threads (apparently), I’ll simply tell you, I’m more Liberal than any of you all. I’m the quintessential ultra-left-wing Hippy like you read about. Being able to read and understand the Constitution and comprehending that the super wealthy powermongers who run this country would like to de-claw all of us does not, by any means, imply that I’m by any twisted definition a Conservative; and ad hominem insults, like the lame misspelling of Liberal in your last post … an insipid implication that I’m not only Conservative, but poorly educated, is evidence that you would rather call names than debate the issue of self-determination through self-reliance, which is at the heart of this and every Gun Debate.
If you want a serious discussion, then drop the code words like “agenda”, or at least preface it with “hidden” if you are trying to imply that whoever you are referring to has some sort of secret plot to do something.
Here’s your problem: you have used the words “evil” and “secret”. implying that they are my words. I never said “evil”. You keep saying it. Further, it’s no secret, no conspiracy, that the Government is engaging in further infringement of all of our 2nd Amendment rights. They openly declare the intention to ban or limit military-styled rifles, calling them “Assault Weapons”, when any drooling slack-jawed Texas resident like myself can easily see that the definitions do not match … they aren’t attacking “Assault Weapons”, they are threatening the owners and potential owners of semi-automatic rifles styled after similar military models.
I don’t bear arms … I’m speaking here about “principles”, and if you have principles, such as a desire for honest discourse, then you must abandon all the propaganda and look at what is really on the table.
The agenda … gradually disarm Americans. Do you need for me to laboriously Google every step since the 19th century that has added law upon law, and statute upon statute, in different states, continually limiting access to firearms by LAW ABIDING CITIZENS?
That’s not my job. I clearly state that there is a continual dismantling of the 2nd Amendment, and I see that if enough citizens abandon that Amendment, it will eventually be lost. It’s not a conspiracy, it’s openly the will of the politicians to gradually remove arms from civilian hands. The proof is in the history … it’s what has been happening. We see what has transpired, all legal and in plain sight. Why do you continue to imply that I think these events are somehow covert or secretive?
Oh, also, I don’t say “they”, I come right out and say “The Government, the politicians, the wealthy and powerful.” The Government wants to ban military style rifle and military style magazines. It’s not “they”, it’s “them”, they’re doing it in front of you.
Your post #114, of course.
With a name like Czarcasm, you think you’d recognize sarca … nevermind.
Why do you think “they” want to disarm Americans? Is something supposed to happen after this unlikely event that “they” aren’t telling us about?
We become more like Western Europe, I gather. Power seeks to dominate. There are no examples in history of power seeking to empower. It’s easier to dominate the unarmed. I understand that the Authorities, and the folks who groom, fund, and support them want to reduce the self reliance of the citizens … they want to have more power and wealth. An armed populace can’t possibly help their goals. It’s completely understandable. You tie up the big dog, put a ring in the bull’s nose, geld the stallion. Control is a simple matter of domination.
There is no up-side for the Authorities if the civilians are armed. It’s just taking longer than they thought. They being the Government.
I thought we were the government?
That’s clearly an oversimplification. Who are we? Are we the citizens? I think the Government is made up of very clever men and women who recognize the opportunity to gain great power and wealth, enjoy privilege, the best health care in the world, and a life long pension that equals their impressive salary, after only one term.
These folks aren’t us, are they? They are the Pharisees, the Morlocks, the city dwellers of Star Trek’s the “Cloud Minders”, they are the farmers of our Animal Farm (sorry George), the “Party” of 1984, they are not we. That’s like saying, " the trillionaires, they are just like us, why, they have our best interests at heart, they said so." They are the smart cavemen who invented religion to control the rest of the Neanderthals, who appointed themselves chief, King, Emperor, and hired the tough cavemen to be their henchmen, their secret police, their CIA.
If “you” are the Government, according to Civics 101, then I am out of the equation. Remember Presidential vote 2000.
And Aussies, I’m still waiting for the skinny on Australian knife laws.
The right to freedom of the press is about as easy to exercise without a printing press as the right to bear arms is to exercise with a crossbow and bowie knife.
Of course you are a liberal, it is obvious from this statement. :rolleyes: Everyone who gets in front of a camera has some goal they want to achieve. Why do you think liberals want to disarm the populace? What is their end game? Diarm the populace and leave us to the tender mercies of a corporate controlled government?
Unless you want the right to bear arms to foment a bloody communist revolution, I’m not getting your point.
Well, to repeal the 13th amendmenjt of course
In a functioning democracy, yes. In a democracy where Deocrats win more votes in house elections but end up with over 20% fewer elected representatives, I think you can make the argument that the most representative branch of government doesn’t clearly reflect the will of the people.
The real difference is: Who owns the presses? Well, we do with computers, but we don’t with the Media. Computers are really our “arms” when it comes to Free Speech. What if the Government endeavored to allow big publishers to print nearly anything, but put a long list of restrictions (beyond libel and kiddie-porn) on the right of the individual to self publish on the internet?
Don’t rolleyes me, I can certainly berate my peers for perceived disingenuousness … who better to do it? Liberals as a group may be prone to be fearful of guns, and so lean toward a gun-free society, but I believe it’s the apolitical authorities who really would like to have a workforce of consumers and tax payers that are essentially rendered incapable of meaningful uprising. It’s not the likelihood of rebellion that is the point, but the capacity, by force of arms … that a populace “could”, that empowers them to be participants , as opposed to “subjects”.
Self reliance isn’t about revolution, it’s about power. If “we” are the government, why can’t we be armed? That’s because we aren’t the government. We are the yokels in the flyover states, the fungible drones that create wealth for the owners of the means of production. If we are the power, why do we act to continually reduce our power for our own good?
Look, criminals are committing crimes. Laws that limit the exercise on our Rights affect the people, We the People, and do not pinpoint the criminal … we are all punished, we all lose our rights. If we are the government, the government shouldn’t fear an armed populace … we is them.
Thank you for noticing that.
In the time when millions of bibles, korans, torahs were being penned by hand, lots of people were being killed by swords and arrows.
Machines make the freedom of speech more effective in the same way that firearms make the exercise of the second amendment more effective. If we shut down the printing presses tomorrow, it would be a violation of freedom of the press just as surely as confiscation of our firearms would be a violation of the second amendment.
My point is only that the second amendment doesn’t give firearms some special status other than the fact that the definition of arms has evolved to include firearms in the same way that freedom of the press has evolved to include TV, radio and the internet.
I don’t know if its the government that has the irrational fear of guns, I think its the gun control folks. The government could care less that they have an armed populace. A truly tyrannical government would be able to roll over us in a matter of days. What protects us isn’t our guns, it is the ideals of our democracy, that would prevent our soldiers from marching on its own citizens, that would prevent our officers from commanding their men to obey the tyranny.
Historically our second amendment right hasn’t protected us from government tyranny a single time since it was enshrined in our cosntitution. Our right to free speecha dn freedom of the press on the other hand have in fact fought against and prevailed against government overreach and tyranny (see McCarthyism and Watergate).
I had the pleasrure of knowing a great tax lawyer and a great American http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/us/09alexander.html?_r=0 who put his life on the line in war and his career on the line in peace for his country. This is what protects us. No amount of guns held in personal arsenals mean a damn if the soldiers in our armies decide they want to support a tyrant and our American way and the freedom these soldiers enjoyed in their youth or adopted later in life ensures that they never will.
Its not perfect but once we can get rid of these tea party folks, I think things will be OK.
Freedom of speech applies to the spoken word, creating art and also to the printed or posted (internet) word. It protects ideas, not pages. Now, freedom of the press, which the First Amendment specifies, seems to protect pages, the pages of the news. But now the news is on the internet. That right, too, protects ideas. The press are the newsmen, the publishers, and the Freedom of the Press also protects the readers of the news … it’s still about ideas.
The 2nd Amendment isn’t about ideas. It’s exactly about tools. Arms (at the time of the publishing of the Bill of Rights) were Muskets, blunderbusses, and bayonets. Muskets are firearms, and riflemen won our independence. Without the rifles, the ideas were academic, with them, they were made real. Amendment 2 is about arms. Arms don’t make the right easier to enforce, the Right is directly about arms. We are the militia … we are The People. But, it’s about the arms.
They didn’t lose Loyalists. They tarred and feathered them, expelled them, and, if in battle, slaughtered them. I mention this because I might have been one myself if I lived here then 
Baloney. They didn’t want to pay moderate taxes, and wanted to grab lands to the West of the Proclamation Line that the British used a a basis for treaties with the Indians.
Can’t argue with that.
You mean, like, when people pretend nuclear arms aren’t arms, and that infringing against children isn’t infringing, and then proclaim themselves 2nd amendment supporters?
Quintessential ultra-left hippies don’t call themselves quintessential ultra-left hippies 
You’re right, I should have said “killed”, not lost. Darned flashbacks.
The motivations of greedy elite power mad politicians are irrelevant, as long as the result of the battle is something like the Constitution. I don’t expect rebels to be altruistic, but I’m gratified when they come up with the Bill of Rights … true it takes a while for it to apply to Women, Blacks and Native Americans, but it’s a document that has generally guided the best elements of our system, and presumably, thwarted the worst.
You’re wrong about how people (me for instance) self-identify. You’re wrong because you’re making it up. If it’s a joke, it’s funny, I guess, but if it isn’t, it’s an insult at best.
That wasn’t the main result of the American Revolution. The main result was to extend the life of slavery, and increase the ferocity of wars against native peoples, as compared with British Empire norms. Plus, it gave us a bizarre divided-government presidential system rather than the parliamentary system most other democracies use. This is because the US shoehorns democracy into what was supposed to be an oligarchical framework.
I advise reading this for a nuanced view of how things might have gone far from perfectly, but a good deal better, if the loyalists had won:
A quintessential left wing hippie should, if forced to make a choice, identify with the loyalists, not the American revolutionaries.
Now, if you primarily care about guns, sure, the American Revolution did probably give us a stronger gun culture.
On reflection, you are right. I shouldn’t have written that.