Home » Blogs » Quote of the Day: Fair’s Fair Edition

Quote of the Day: Fair’s Fair Edition

Dan Zimmerman - comments No comments

 

“Why are the First, Fourth and Fifth amendments subject to erosion in the name of homeland security, but the Second Amendment is beyond compromise in the name of saving innocent lives?” – Tom Diaz in Guns kill more people. So why does terrorism get all the attention? [via washingtonpost.com]

0 thoughts on “Quote of the Day: Fair’s Fair Edition”

  1. So he’s in favor of the erosion of our constitutional rights, and he wants more of it?

    Sometimes it’s shocking how unpopular freedom is.

    Reply
  2. Diaz used to be conservative before he went over to the dark side. That steely-eyed stare is intended to menace his former associates.

    Reply
    • Sounds like he adores the Patriot Act, “free speech zones” and so-on.

      That is the Bushevist, so-called “conservative,” a.k.a. DARK side.

      Reply
  3. Well first of all, the 2nd amendment IS “homeland security” at it’s first and finest.

    And second, I would point you to a rather famous quote by Jefferson about giving up liberties for safety.

    Reply
  4. “Why are the First, Fourth and Fifth amendments subject to erosion in the name of homeland security”

    1) Thank you for asking the question, the answer is they should not been eroded but the liberal press is more than happy to go along the politicians and less critical of the govt instead of fighting back because they believe in giving up freedom for a false sense of security and a government that will one day step on your neck too. This is like the Crimson Press who wishes to stiffle all descent to libtard Harvard. By keeping silent YOU and the REST OF THE PRESS has allowed those freedoms to go down the drain!

    2) Government used FUD to take away our other freedoms just like they are using FUD to take away 2a

    3) Instead of being a complacent liberal troll as you watch the freedoms erode from a seat at the capital, Come help us fight for the second so we can someday push back and and win back the other freedoms we have lost.

    Otherwise, FOAD because I don’t think you can put 2+2 together.

    Reply
    • Liberal MY ASS.

      Fox was all about King Bush and his new Ameican Order.

      The “liberal” media wanted no part of it, and were openly critical.

      When are people in this place going to realize that whether it’s America’s far right wing, über-Christian version of the Taliban or the largely leftist gun grabbers, both are equally and thoroughly inimical to freedom and sense.

      Sheesh!

      Reply
  5. “… there is a reason why, as a general rule, people are prohibited from owning silencers, machine guns and what we would call sawed-off rifles or shotguns.”

    Actually, there is NOT any reason. People who invest thousands of dollars to create a legal entity (a trust) and register the trust and its contents with the appropriate government agencies are not criminals. I have $10,000 for the first person that can show me two documented instances of members of such a trust using the items of that trust to commit violent crimes against a citizen or our nation.

    Reply
  6. Because the erosion if the First, Fourth, and Fifth amendments is wrong, much of so-called Homeland Security is a myth, and adding another to the list doesn’t make it better.

    Reply
  7. One of the things that makes 2A discussions so different is this.
    With nearly all the rest of the Bill of Rights we are talking intangible concepts which “Joe America” has a hard time wrapping their head around because how do you assign a value to a concept. Whereas the 2A discussions don’t just stop with the concept “fight tyranny”, they are also firmly attached to a tangible object with very definite ownership and clearly defined values (in money).

    That physical “anchor” of guns makes the 2A arguments a horse of a different color.

    Reply
    • The second amendment sates that the right to keep and bear arms hall not be infringed, not the amendment itself.

      The first talks bout religion, free speech and so-on, again talking about non-infringement.

      Reply
  8. Uh… I dunno about you guys, but I hold a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to changing the first, fourth, and fifth amendments. I live by “no touchy our freedom.” What’s this about “erosion?”

    And when has the “erosion” of the first amendment ever cost somebody their lives?

    Reply
  9. And he still has his job why? If I spoke to a customer that way I would be fired. He should be standing in the unemployment line, hat in hand, thinking about what it really means when you take an oath to public office.

    Reply
  10. Politicians have been putting thier collective feet in thier mouths as long as politics have been around. He was dead wrong to put his opinion to paper, even though he has every right to that opinion. I hope the voters of his small part of the world remind him that he is still a citizen come election time.

    Reply
  11. Your premise is flawed, therefore so is your conclusion. The fact is that none of our natural, inherent rights should ever be infringed, especially in the name of “homeland security.”

    Reply
  12. True about Dicks management handling the situation well, and about how Lord Bloomberg, Michael Moore, and the other nazi libs would’ve had this incident all over the news “Gun nuts go nuts,” etc. But when hundreds of savages go “flash robbing” the “media” always just calls them “youths,” A.K.A. yoots, yoofs….. Got to love “impartial” reporting.

    Reply
  13. this should alarm everyone. first with the nonsense over the sequester, before that the issues with Libya and now this? the US military has become politicized and many think thats the real reason you’ve seen Marine greats like Mattis and Allen retiring instead of taking on new assignments.

    this just completes the circle. no parts of the govt are worthy of trust anymore.

    Reply
  14. Wow, I feel like I wrote this article. This is the exact email I received from them followed by a cancel order…after waiting with it for 2+ months on backorder. Obviously I will not be doing business with them again.

    Reply
  15. i called yesterday to see if they could look up a pistol and see if any of their vendors have it. they said, “no, you have to go to the store” WTF? Inventory moving too fast apparently.

    Picked up a used Vbob today, FTW. so no more gun purchases for at least a week.

    Reply
  16. had this happen to me some years back with another company, and while i don’t like to assume such theories, i suspect it’s done to knock out back-orders based on lower prices.

    Reply
  17. Get a Sig SP2022; it’s half the price of the H&K, includes real tritium night sights, and has a better trigger. If you prefer all metal, go with the P226 or P229.

    Reply
  18. You can rack the slide on a semi-auto pistol in 1/3 second. Pull the trigger on a revolver, and it will rotate the cylinder to a loaded chamber in less than 1/4 second. I take that to mean that Utah allows you to carry (without a permit) a gun that is 1/4 to 1/3 of a second away from ready to fire. Not perfect, but not bad.

    Reply
  19. When they came for those of another church, I did not speak up because I attend the same church as the President.

    When they came or those on soap boxes, with presses or who assembled to air grievances, I did not peak up because I’d no soap box and go only to work or the firing range, avoiding crowds.

    When they came with no warrants to confiscate the computers and DVDs of neighbour, I did not speak up because they were not at my door.

    When they eradicated Habeas Corpus, I did not speak up because I was not under indictment.

    When they came for my guns, there were a damned sight fewer of us to speak up.

    I’ve been in the trenches since forever in defence of the entire Constitution, not just the 2nd item in the Bill of Rights.

    Where we’re most of you? Applauding Shrubya for keeping protesters out of sight, in “free speech zones?”

    As ye sew, so shall ye reap.

    Reply

Leave a Comment