ON Y/A this morning, I lost it this morning over another NRA nut case. I really have a problem with those devoted to single-issues, self-serving issues.
Here's the link:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Avtcf7BXZuWBM3rOZOkiNSXR7BR.?qid=20070804045359AAnFH9G
2007-08-04 02:04:25 · 12 answers · asked by HillBillieNot 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Since 9/11, Fox News and the Bush Regime have brain-washed them into believing that terrorists and their sympathizers are lurking around every corner, poised to infect them with a lethal virus, slice them with box cutters or obliterate them with a suicide bomb. In the black and white perspective of the Neo-Tories, you are with us or against us. If you do not fit into their narrow and misguided notion of conservatism, you must be a "liberal". The American media/propaganda machine (which the Empire's power moguls have brilliantly portrayed as "liberal" to obfuscate the fact that six corporate conglomerates own 90% of the mainstream media market) has sharply defined the "treasonous", "ineffectual" nature of "liberals", portraying them as soft on crime, sympathetic to those demonic terrorists, Socialists and Communists, immoral, and militarily weak.
It has become too cumbersome to carry on the charade of democracy. Staging two consecutive fraudulent presidential elections, maintaining a Congress which has evolved into a rubber-stamp for the Regime, and giving the populace access to a court system packed with ideologues who eagerly await the opportunity to endorse the Empire's edicts have effectively enabled tyranny under the guise of democracy. However, these unnecessary hindrances have become obsolete. Besides, if we are to rescue Scott McClellan from eternity in Malebolge, it is time that the Bush Regime comes out of the closet and simply issues its own version of the Enabling Act.
2007-08-04 02:07:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 6⤋
I agree with another poster; you're an idiot. Stop and think just a minute, if a terrorist group really wanted to make a statement about how unsecure the U.S. is, they would hit small towns in the middle of the country.
Gun owners get angry when it's even hinted about more gun control laws, when the "guvment" won't enforce the ones on the books. Don't make us all out to be ignorant hicks, 99% of us gun owners are more responsible citizens than the ones who don't own guns
"An armed society is a polite society."
2007-08-04 02:41:51 · answer #2 · answered by madd texan 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Hillibilly...The only nut job I see here is you.
You obviously totally missed the point of the answerers in that link. Few of them even referenced terrorists. They were talking about defense from internal criminals. One made the reference of that poor family that was attacked in their own home. Things could have changed dramatically if someone in that home had been armed.
The police cannot be everywhere. Often they only show up after the fact to clean up the mess. There is less violent crime in states that have concealed carry laws, because criminals are basically cowards and think twice about attacking a victim that may be able to defend himself.
The first step towards dictatorship is an unarmed populace.
2007-08-04 02:14:51 · answer #3 · answered by kathy_is_a_nurse 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
it incredibly is a question that puzzles me. it incredibly is extraordinarily no longer likely that terrorists even understand the place many small cities are, no longer to show aim them. Terrorists could make the information and harm as many human beings as achieveable. Small city united statesa. would not appear as if such a competent selection. it incredibly is too undesirable that a lot of human beings would properly be governed via concern. the reality is, of direction, that something can take place every time--you would be in a automobile coincidence, supply way some stairs, have a heart attack. unhappy, yet actual. according to risk because of the fact human beings in cities handle hazards daily the terrorist question in basic terms feels like one greater risk--there's a undeniable fatality to it. yet, I believe the poster above who says in case you think of human beings in cities do no longer think of roughly it, you're incorrect.
2016-10-13 22:39:01 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Answer: I think that they are more honest, intelligent, and enlightened than you.
Details: This morning you lost nothing...As intellectually that was in fact all you brought to the table in the first place. NOTHING!
My Conclusion: You are of limited education, have been nowhere, done nothing, and have in all probability exceeded your capabilities by affording a computer and Internet service...
Mums not awake yet, correct!
2007-08-04 02:20:26 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If someone was to take your drugs from you I bet you would call them Terrorists.
Get a life. In America we are going to protect ourselves no matter what the libtards say.
2007-08-04 02:21:52 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
We go to Wal-Mart too, and we know about the terrorists plans to attack us in the malls and grocery stores, hoping we won't be carrying our firearms. Sorry Terrorists, we are carrying our guns to the store.
2007-08-04 02:08:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Hmmmmmmmmm! This sounds like a FOX news alert!
2007-08-04 02:11:47 · answer #8 · answered by Pamela V 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
These people that are so afraid to die and need guns to protect them are the same ones who think they're going to be rewarded in heaven or somewhere in the sky when they die for their "good deeds" (aka hate-mongering). If they're so sure they're going to be taken to paradise when they die then why are they the same people who fear death the most?
I never understood that.
2007-08-04 02:13:28 · answer #9 · answered by trumph 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Sorry... I disagree with you... totally... You are more of an example of the anti gun nutcases than that was an example of a pro gun wacko.
2007-08-04 02:16:10 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋