Hope He's Right

[njpilot 671]

Was listening to the John Gambling show on my walk this morning with the ultra-liberal terrorist defendin communist Ron Kubie filling in.

 

They were talking about the Mosque in NYC.

 

A caller mentioned something about people wouldn't be walking around by the Mosque with guns.

 

Kubie, very surprisingly remarked that in his opinion, the way he has read the recent SCOTUS decisions, he wouldn't be surprised if people will be able to carry everywhere soon.

 

Let's hope he's right!

[robot_hell 72]

I have high hopes for NJ CCW (and NY too) but expect to see neither reciprocity nor non-resident CCW permits for NY. I suppose that even if NJ CCW became a reality my rights would end at the state line. Considering I work in the city and spend practically all of my time there during the week, a NJ CCW wouldn't do me very much if I could only carry on weekends.

[jgofnj 5]

Did you ever think in a million years your would find yourself saying "I hope Ron Kuby is right!". LOL

[KpdPipes 388]

Did you ever think in a million years your would find yourself saying "I hope Ron Kuby is right!". LOL

 

Sadly when he had the radio show with the Red-Bereted moron, I found RON to be the reasonable and rational one FAR more than Sliwa. When he forgets that he's a communist occasionally he's not always wrong.

[jgofnj 5]

Actually, I have to agree with you. I really missed that show and was VERY pissed off they took it away for that asshole Imus - can't stand him.

[KpdPipes 388]

Actually, I have to agree with you. I really missed that show and was VERY pissed off they took it away for that asshole Imus - can't stand him.

 

I have to admit though Good for ABC they had the foresight to have Imus in place already when Sliwa had his EPIC meltdown when Gotti got off.....again.

[Old School 611]

Did you ever think in a million years your would find yourself saying "I hope Ron Kuby is right!". LOL

 

Sadly when he had the radio show with the Red-Bereted moron, I found RON to be the reasonable and rational one FAR more than Sliwa. When he forgets that he's a communist occasionally he's not always wrong.

 

 

KPD another one we agree on...+1 this is getting scary!!

[FFDP82 4]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-a ... nd-edition

 

It's hilarious watching people who claim to love the 2nd amendment willingly destroy the 1st amendment. Pure comedy.

[Old School 611]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-19-2010/extremist-makeover---homeland-edition

 

It's hilarious watching people who claim to love the 2nd amendment willingly destroy the 1st amendment. Pure comedy.

 

 

I painfully watched that Jon Stewart clip....What is your point?

Your post doesn't make sense.

[FFDP82 4]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-19-2010/extremist-makeover---homeland-edition

 

It's hilarious watching people who claim to love the 2nd amendment willingly destroy the 1st amendment. Pure comedy.

 

 

I painfully watched that Jon Stewart clip....What is your point?

Your post doesn't make sense.

 

Freedom is freedom. Freedom means some people will abuse it. Rights apply to everyone equally. If you deny these assholes their Mosque, you set a precedent that the government can, in fact, makes laws about where and when one may open a house of worship, despite the first sentence in the Bill of Rights being "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "

 

It's ironic to see people in a state like NJ, that requires licenses and decides who can exercise their second amendment at what occasions and for what purposes, and complain about it, yet turn around and support doing the very same thing they hate, to the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; except for a Mosque at Ground Zero, or a _____ at ______

 

If you agree with that line of thinking above, I guess you agree with "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. As long as the weapon is not named as an assault weapon, does not have a magazine capacity over fifteen rounds, has only one criteria in a list of features, may not leave the house except to go to a shooting range or hunting, does not fire ammunition with a hollow nose except at a shooting range or hunting, is registered, etc. etc. yada yada

 

I'm sure you are fine with that too, right? After all, we can pick and choose how rights can be exercised, and by whom, and for what reason, right?

 

You either have rights, or you don't. You play a very, very, VERY dangerous game when you try and pick and choose what rights should apply to who, and under what circumstances, and for what purpose. That is the path to the eventual abolition of our constitutionally protected rights. It's as simple as that.

[KpdPipes 388]

:text-goodpost: We dont HAVE to Like it..we also dont have the RIGHT to stop it..there is no constitutional protection against being Offended.

[crackaloon 15]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-19-2010/extremist-makeover---homeland-edition

 

It's hilarious watching people who claim to love the 2nd amendment willingly destroy the 1st amendment. Pure comedy.

 

I really really want to like John Stewart, because his delivery is very good. BUT when everyone in his audience laughs it's just about when I want to strangle the shit out of him...so I can't watch.

[JimmyAGR 54]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-19-2010/extremist-makeover---homeland-edition

 

It's hilarious watching people who claim to love the 2nd amendment willingly destroy the 1st amendment. Pure comedy.

 

 

I painfully watched that Jon Stewart clip....What is your point?

Your post doesn't make sense.

 

Freedom is freedom. Freedom means some people will abuse it. Rights apply to everyone equally. If you deny these assholes their Mosque, you set a precedent that the government can, in fact, makes laws about where and when one may open a house of worship, despite the first sentence in the Bill of Rights being "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "

 

It's ironic to see people in a state like NJ, that requires licenses and decides who can exercise their second amendment at what occasions and for what purposes, and complain about it, yet turn around and support doing the very same thing they hate, to the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; except for a Mosque at Ground Zero, or a _____ at ______

 

If you agree with that line of thinking above, I guess you agree with "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. As long as the weapon is not named as an assault weapon, does not have a magazine capacity over fifteen rounds, has only one criteria in a list of features, may not leave the house except to go to a shooting range or hunting, does not fire ammunition with a hollow nose except at a shooting range or hunting, is registered, etc. etc. yada yada

 

I'm sure you are fine with that too, right? After all, we can pick and choose how rights can be exercised, and by whom, and for what reason, right?

 

You either have rights, or you don't. You play a very, very, VERY dangerous game when you try and pick and choose what rights should apply to who, and under what circumstances, and for what purpose. That is the path to the eventual abolition of our constitutionally protected rights. It's as simple as that.

 

You are correct, it is wrong to stop it. We can not give up any freedoms for once we give one up, they will come for more. I hate the idea, but respect the document that grants the freedoms it comes from. Sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Old School 611]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-19-2010/extremist-makeover---homeland-edition

 

It's hilarious watching people who claim to love the 2nd amendment willingly destroy the 1st amendment. Pure comedy.

 

 

I painfully watched that Jon Stewart clip....What is your point?

Your post doesn't make sense.

 

Freedom is freedom. Freedom means some people will abuse it. Rights apply to everyone equally. If you deny these assholes their Mosque, you set a precedent that the government can, in fact, makes laws about where and when one may open a house of worship, despite the first sentence in the Bill of Rights being "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "

 

It's ironic to see people in a state like NJ, that requires licenses and decides who can exercise their second amendment at what occasions and for what purposes, and complain about it, yet turn around and support doing the very same thing they hate, to the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; except for a Mosque at Ground Zero, or a _____ at ______

 

If you agree with that line of thinking above, I guess you agree with "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. As long as the weapon is not named as an assault weapon, does not have a magazine capacity over fifteen rounds, has only one criteria in a list of features, may not leave the house except to go to a shooting range or hunting, does not fire ammunition with a hollow nose except at a shooting range or hunting, is registered, etc. etc. yada yada

 

I'm sure you are fine with that too, right? After all, we can pick and choose how rights can be exercised, and by whom, and for what reason, right?

 

You either have rights, or you don't. You play a very, very, VERY dangerous game when you try and pick and choose what rights should apply to who, and under what circumstances, and for what purpose. That is the path to the eventual abolition of our constitutionally protected rights. It's as simple as that.

 

I agree with you...

The Constitution is sacred and needs to be adhered to...Agreed!

 

Still don't see the relavance of the Jon Stewart clip.

 

The thing we have to remember is we are at war.

What is the background of the builder? The funding? The intent of the building?

Is it going to be a center of terrorist conspiracy?

 

As a house of worship it should be built and most likely will.

Compare this to the bund camps of the 30's and early 40's.

 

 

And maybe it will support a great source from which a terroist watch list can be formulated.

[wsl 2]

At first glance, his commending Heston for his speech is spot on, but the argument beings to get thin. The Columbine Shootings weren't done in the name of religion. It isn't a trend that high school students occasionally go nuts and shoot up their schools. So Heston's speech makes perfect sense in that regards. 19 people flew planes into buildings in the name of a religion and it was cheered around the world. Not the same thing. Mcveigh didn't blow up the federal building in the name of religion.

 

No one is questioning the constitutional right to build the mosque. And its those families, relatives and friends of victims 1st amendment rights to voice their opposition. You could argue that the 1st amendment has limitations built into free speech where it comes to hate speech and speech that is dangerous to others. Is investigating the funding preventing their rights? We are at war, and when a religion that has a vast sect of those that take the Qu'ran literal, precaution is wise. No one agrees with those that say no mosques should be built ever. No one is trying to infringe the rights of Mulsims by being aware of the risks. It doesn't equal the 2nd amendment arguments because the violence done with guns doesn't even approach the violence muslims around the world are doing.

 

We as gun owners understand that NICS is a required system, or should understand it. A simple background check to make sure you aren't a criminal or crazy is a good thing. NJ has gone over the line when it comes to permits, a list of bans, etc.. We're not the only state. Having a check for terrorism built into the only religion that every terrorist act has been committed in the name of, isn't unreasonable.

 

Stewart is funny, and it was a nice piece, but its a show piece. You can't get laughs just by stating the facts. And the left immediately jumps to calling it religious bigotry, instead of actually looking at it from a sensitivity viewpoint. If you can't argue the facts, attack. Its their calling card. And they've used it for every issues since the tea party started. They can't debate the facts for the stimulus, the health care bill, the financial regulations, and every other mass spending bill. So blame the other side and attack. Stand up for your freedoms, you're a racist. Ask serious questions, you're a bigot. The people aren't standing for it anymore.

[Guest]

why does everyone keep saying they want to build a Mosque... if they were in fact building a giant Mosque that would definitely be covered by the freedom we have in practicing our religion.. last time I checked we were NOT guaranteed rights to have a COMMUNITY CENTER and that is what this project is.. it is a COMMUNITY CENTER.. that has a Mosque in it... that is like saying, you can't stop those developers from building that super mall.. because one of the stores happens to be a church.. and blocking to project would violate their right to practice religion.. your rights end at the door of the religious building, as that is ALL you are guaranteed.. further.. the only other concern would be where the financial backing comes from.. if a SINGLE CENT comes from ANY "extremist" "terrorist backing" organization I would say that would void any rights.. its not like you can say "this is our holy temple" but meanwhile funding it off of extremist groups bent on the destruction of our country.. allowing that would create an obvious security risk.. The biggest issue I have is the CLAIM that it is to bridge Muslim/non-Muslim relations.. yeah right.. if that was the case then they would have NO PROBLEM moving the stupid thing..