Subdeacon Joe Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 With the way various municipalities are bending over backwards to avoid offending the Occupiers, maybe the NRA, GOA, SAF, et al. should hold protests on that same model. Get together in parks, set up tents, dig fire pits, strap on their guns, sling their rifles, and hold up signs demanding our rights under the Constitution. Given that all sorts of city ordinances are being violated by the occupiers, and that the police have been told to ignore reports of rape, robbery, and drug dealing, they should also have to ignore people carrying guns as long as they have signs or T-shirts with political slogans. And, the cities can't require fees or permits, since they have waived those for the Occupiers. And they should have to provide power, water, sanitation, and security, all for free. Still some details to be worked out, but whatchya think? Would gun owners get the same "hand off" treatment the Occupiers are getting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harvey Mushman Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Would gun owners get the same "hand off" treatment the Occupiers are getting? I'm thinkin' we would......... right about the same time we see porcine levitation! Harvey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdeacon Joe Posted November 2, 2011 Author Share Posted November 2, 2011 Would gun owners get the same "hand off" treatment the Occupiers are getting? I'm thinkin' we would......... right about the same time we see porcine levitation! Harvey But then think of all the lovely lawsuits that cities would be opening themselves to. Violation of equal protection, violation of freedom of speech and assembly. At the very least. By setting the precedent of ignoring the breaking of laws and ordinances by the Occupiers, the cities that are leaning over backwards for them have opened the door for pretty much anything so long as there is some political sloganeering going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Okie Sawbones, SASS #77381 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 OWS has some valid points. Unfortunately, they have a lot of fringe elements that overshadow the basic demand to remove Wall Street from political influence. The amount of money required to elect an official, or to pass an initiative, has become obscene. There should be severe limits set IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Well, I'm thinking there is something rotten in DC for sure. The POTUS gets paid $400,000.00 for 2011, along with a $50,000.00 for expenses. According to my old fashion arithmetic comes to a grand total of $450,000.00 BEFORE TAXES. If you extend that number over four years you come out circa $1,800,000.00 before taxes. HOW MUCH DO YOU THINK WILL BE SPENT ON THE UPCOMING ELECTIONS. Then consider all of the legislators in the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT that are coming up for election, and they do not earn as much per bellybutton. All of the parties are guilty of the same conduct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Okie Sawbones, SASS #77381 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 In 2008, Barack Obama raised some $778 million for his presidential bid. The total cost of the national election, including Presidential and Congressional, was about $5.3 billion. Since then, court decisions like Citizens United have made spending by outside groups easier. "In 2012," Dave Levinthal, director of the Center for Responsive Politics told PRI's Here and now, "you're easily looking at 6, maybe even 7 billion dollars nationwide." That is obscene IMHO. Another source says $9 billion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 You can bet that Joe Taxpayer is going get to pay a major part of that. Either through donation solicitations or outright extortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdeacon Joe Posted November 2, 2011 Author Share Posted November 2, 2011 I agree that they have valid points, especially about bail outs. But I'm looking at what the cities required of the TEA movement but have not required of the Occupiers. No fees, no permits (but there have been cases where fees and permits for political protest rallies have been ruled unconstitutional), not having to pay for power, sanitation, or security - all which the TEA movement had to pay. Oh, and no requirement for insurance. These cities have, by not requiring anything of the Occupy movement, and basically telling LE to not go into the tent cities to enforce the law, have created a precedent for "anything goes" at any gathering with even a hint of being political. That whole equal protection and freedom of speech thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin Gun For Hire Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 With the way various municipalities are bending over backwards to avoid offending the Occupiers, maybe the NRA, GOA, SAF, et al. should hold protests on that same model. Get together in parks, set up tents, dig fire pits, strap on their guns, sling their rifles, and hold up signs demanding our rights under the Constitution. Given that all sorts of city ordinances are being violated by the occupiers, and that the police have been told to ignore reports of rape, robbery, and drug dealing, they should also have to ignore people carrying guns as long as they have signs or T-shirts with political slogans. And, the cities can't require fees or permits, since they have waived those for the Occupiers. And they should have to provide power, water, sanitation, and security, all for free. Still some details to be worked out, but whatchya think? Would gun owners get the same "hand off" treatment the Occupiers are getting? Joe, I'm with ya. Will ya be bringing your cannon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harvey Mushman Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Careful on the bailout points. Bad as they are, the banks paid back all, early, plus interest. While the administration claims GM and Chrysler paid back all, they did not - over $14-17B is still on the taxpayers and will not be collected, and that does not even count the creditors and claimants who were stiffed in a reversal of 200 years of bankruptcy law - that one has HUGE ramifications for our businesses and credit risk in the future - part of the investment issues we see today. Fannie and Freddie (part of the gov't led, real root cause of the majority this) have been bailed by us taxpayers (or the 52% if who pay income tax) more than $170B SO FAR, and congress keeps subsidizing them for more trips to the trough as they continue to lose more, some R's included. You have to look really hard to see this covered up front in the media. I'm resisting the urge to go political..... Cheers and good nite! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusty Balz, SASS#46599 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 They will bend over backward for the "Flea Party" Real law abiding second amendment supporting Americans would end up vilified and arrested Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallaby Jack, SASS #44062 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 It seems that most of the "occupiers" tents in Sydney were empty overnight ..... according to a thermal imaging camera used by one of the media ...... ........ figgers ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Was that their tents or their heads? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallaby Jack, SASS #44062 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 .... they said "tents", ...... but I suspect the "heads" also ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Duncan Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Wonder how many of them are former ACORN nuts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forty Rod SASS 3935 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Shades of the sixties and early seventies.....and look where that BS got us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rye Miles #13621 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 The Occupiers should be in front of the White House. Corporate greed? Gimme a break, they all got cell phones, iphones, cars etc. What a bunch of hypocrites! They should all go live in tents in the forest and tiptoe thru the tulips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.