|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
BillBab 
Group: Members
Posts: 4500
Joined: Sep. 2008
|
 |
Posted on: Jan. 20 2013, 4:49 pm |
|
   |
Did not NEED to sit at the front of the bus!
There was no “need” for her to remain in her seat. The front of the bus would not arrive at its destination any sooner than the back. The front was not safer than the back. It was no colder or warmer, more comfortable or less, cheaper or more expensive then the back and there was no physical ailment that prevented her from moving. Essentially there was no difference between the front and the back of the bus.
So does she have a RIGHT to sit where she wants or is that right solely based on need?
Are you only allowed to speak up if you can prove a need to?
Or does the First Amendment protect all speech that does not DIRECTLY cause some harm
Feel free to mutter amongst yourselves
--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."
Thomas Sowell
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
Walkinman
A rainbow
Group: Members
Posts: 6621
Joined: Nov. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 20 2013, 5:06 pm |
|
 |
Would you feel safer if she sat in the back, Bill?
--------------
Guided Alaska backpacking and hiking trips
"What good is a used up world and how can it be worth having?" -- Sting, All This Time.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
big_load
Group: Members
Posts: 21844
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 20 2013, 5:16 pm |
|
|
And I suppose you think the toilets flush just the same way in segregated bathrooms. I sincerely hope that you're raising this topic just to cause a fuss.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
Drift Woody
Group: Members
Posts: 5308
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 20 2013, 5:24 pm |
|
|
I'm sure BillBab thinks he's making a valid point. Of course, that analogy would make sense only if the proposal was to prohibit sales of assault weapons to rightwing dittoheads while allowing others to make that purchase.
--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
hbfa
Group: Members
Posts: 7077
Joined: Feb. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 20 2013, 6:00 pm |
|
|
Nice Cut N Paste Billbab.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
HighGravity
Group: Members
Posts: 2348
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 20 2013, 6:06 pm |
|
|
I'm sure Babs was at the same rally and came up with the idiotic analogy all by himself.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
Bill NC
Group: Members
Posts: 890
Joined: Nov. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 20 2013, 6:15 pm |
|
|
OK, Rosa Parks did not have to demonstrate a need to sit in the front of the bus. She had every right to sit in the front of the bus.
So, does one have to prove a need for an 11 round magazine?
Did no one else get this? Really?
BillBab, please feel free to clue me in if I missed your point.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
HighGravity
Group: Members
Posts: 2348
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 20 2013, 6:18 pm |
|
|
Your rights aren't based on your desirers Bab. Otherwise you'd have a right to rape. You have no right to an 11 round magazine unless it is given to you by the governing authority.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
HighGravity
Group: Members
Posts: 2348
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 20 2013, 6:24 pm |
|
|
Bab is confusing inherent rights with rights given by the governing authority. Rosa Parks had an inherent right to equality. There is no inherent right to any product unless it can be shown to be the only means necessary to maintain an inherent right.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
davela
Group: Members
Posts: 659
Joined: Dec. 2011
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 20 2013, 6:58 pm |
|
|
The op is a blatantly dumb racist.Sadly there are many of his ilk.I cant believe this guy can tie his shoelaces.I wouldnt want to meet a person like him but inadvertently you do sometimes because they dont expose their racism openly besides net forums.The coward factor?
--------------
Protect Greater Canyonlands!
Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
HighGravity
Group: Members
Posts: 2348
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 20 2013, 7:25 pm |
|
|
(Bill NC @ Jan. 20 2013, 6:28 pm)
QUOTE
(HighGravity @ Jan. 20 2013, 6:24 pm)
QUOTE Bab is confusing inherent rights with rights given by the governing authority. Rosa Parks had an inherent right to equality. There is no inherent right to any product unless it can be shown to be the only means necessary to maintain an inherent right. Did you ever read the Constitution? Good god, what drivel. The people have the right to anything unless the people have expressly given the right to the government to restrict same.
Yes I've read it many times, unlike your average conservative.
According to your logic murder and rape are legal since they aren't prohibited in the Constitution.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39589
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 20 2013, 9:01 pm |
|
|
FAIL: That issue was ruled on equal protection grounds.
Browder v. Gayle
"Browder v. Gayle, 142 F. Supp. 707 (1956),[1] was a case heard before the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama on Montgomery bus segregation laws. The district court's ruling in this case ended segregation on Montgomery public buses.[2]"
"In June 1956, the District Court ruled that "the enforced segregation of black and white passengers on motor buses operating in the City of Montgomery violates the Constitution and laws of the United States," because the conditions deprived people of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court further enjoined the state of Alabama and city of Montgomery from continuing to operate segregated buses."
On which basis a ban for everyone equally would be fine.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
Walkinman
A rainbow
Group: Members
Posts: 6621
Joined: Nov. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 20 2013, 9:25 pm |
|
|
I've read most of the US Constitution - where does it talk about busses?
--------------
Guided Alaska backpacking and hiking trips
"What good is a used up world and how can it be worth having?" -- Sting, All This Time.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 18
|
Drift Woody
Group: Members
Posts: 5308
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 20 2013, 9:56 pm |
|
|
(High_Sierra_Fan @ Jan. 20 2013, 8:01 pm)
QUOTE FAIL: That issue was ruled on equal protection grounds. Browder v. Gayle" Browder v. Gayle, 142 F. Supp. 707 (1956),[1] was a case heard before the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama on Montgomery bus segregation laws. The district court's ruling in this case ended segregation on Montgomery public buses.[2]" "In June 1956, the District Court ruled that "the enforced segregation of black and white passengers on motor buses operating in the City of Montgomery violates the Constitution and laws of the United States," because the conditions deprived people of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court further enjoined the state of Alabama and city of Montgomery from continuing to operate segregated buses." On which basis a ban for everyone equally would be fine.
Exactly. That's what I was trying to get across -- the ban was targeting a specific group. Bab's post wasn't necessarily racist; it was a patently false analogy.
--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 19
|
Land Rover
Group: Members
Posts: 6529
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 20 2013, 10:04 pm |
|
|
(Drift Woody @ Jan. 20 2013, 9:56 pm)
QUOTE
(High_Sierra_Fan @ Jan. 20 2013, 8:01 pm)
QUOTE FAIL: That issue was ruled on equal protection grounds. Browder v. Gayle" Browder v. Gayle, 142 F. Supp. 707 (1956),[1] was a case heard before the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama on Montgomery bus segregation laws. The district court's ruling in this case ended segregation on Montgomery public buses.[2]" "In June 1956, the District Court ruled that "the enforced segregation of black and white passengers on motor buses operating in the City of Montgomery violates the Constitution and laws of the United States," because the conditions deprived people of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court further enjoined the state of Alabama and city of Montgomery from continuing to operate segregated buses." On which basis a ban for everyone equally would be fine. Exactly. That's what I was trying to get across -- the ban was targeting a specific group. Bab's post wasn't necessarily racist; it was a patently false analogy.
I think we can safely say it touched a lot of bases for bab.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 20
|
Old Frank
Group: Members
Posts: 624
Joined: Sep. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 21 2013, 10:05 am |
|
|
The NRA might have argued that Rosa's best defense against the tyrannical city government laws would have been to carry an AK-47.
Could have driven the bus if she wanted.
--------------
My favorite compliment: "GrandPa, I've seen other old men, and their faces are a whole lot cruddier than yours is".
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 21
|
Drift Woody
Group: Members
Posts: 5308
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 21 2013, 10:44 am |
|
|
(Old Frank @ Jan. 21 2013, 9:05 am)
QUOTE The NRA might have argued that Rosa's best defense against the tyrannical city government laws would have been to carry an AK-47.
Could have driven the bus if she wanted.
Rush Limbaugh recently spewed:
"If a lot of African-Americans back in the '60s had guns and the legal right to use them for self-defense, you think they would have needed Selma?" He continued, "If John Lewis, who says he was beat upside the head, if John Lewis had had a gun, would he have been beat upside the head on the bridge?"
John Lewis responded:
"Our goal in the Civil Rights Movement was not to injure or destroy but to build a sense of community, to reconcile people to the true oneness of all humanity," said Rep. John Lewis. "African Americans in the 60s could have chosen to arm themselves, but we made a conscious decision not to. We were convinced that peace could not be achieved through violence. Violence begets violence, and we believed the only way to achieve peaceful ends was through peaceful means. We took a stand against an unjust system, and we decided to use this faith as our shield and the power of compassion as our defense.
"And that is why this nation celebrates the genius and the elegance of Martin Luther King Jr.'s work and philosophy. Through the power of non-violent action, Dr. King accomplished something that no movement, no action of government, no war, no legislation, or strategy of politics had ever achieved in this nation's history. It was non-violence that not only brought an end to legalized segregation and racial discrimination, but Dr. King's peaceful work changed the hearts of millions of Americans who stood up for justice and rejected the injury of violence forever."
Let's face it, the yahoos who are now saying blacks in the Civil Rights movement would have been better off heavily armed are the successors of the Jim Crow segregationists who (along with state & local law enforcement that was on their side) were looking for any excuse to inflict a lot more punishment on those uppities. It would have set back the cause of Civil Rights in this country for another decade or more, and a lot more innocent people would have been killed.
That's the mentality of BillBab and those who inform his opinions. They point to Rosa Parks as if her experience somehow supports their cause, when she and MLK and the entire non-violent crusade for Civil Rights is the antithesis of what these gun nuts stand for.
Here's an example of someone who is totally brain-dead:
Larry Ward, chairman of Gun Appreciation Day, told CNN that if blacks had been given the “right to keep and bear arms” since the country’s inception, “perhaps slavery might not have been a chapter in our history.”
--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 22
|
dayhiker9
Group: Members
Posts: 5299
Joined: Apr. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 21 2013, 12:00 pm |
|
|
It is great (and still amazes me) that Ghandi's and later King's appeal o justice worked, there was a time when it would not, and not so long ago, as the Abolistionist PBS show demonstrated.
Of course the Black Panthers tried the other approach and it did not work so hot in Chicago.
It is hard to tell where B^2 stands on this, since it wasn't even clear (to me) that this had something to do with guns in the first place or that in was FOR rosa parks right to sit where she wanted.
I am guessing that somewhere someone is reasoning that guns and amno should be restricted in part because there is no NEED for some of these items. IF that is the case, it is probably more part of a balancing of rights, ie there is no NEED to be able to scream fire in a theatre in order to have free speech etc.
--------------
" before you make assertions about numbers, look at the numbers." Krugman
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 23
|
|
|
| Post Number: 24
|
tomas
Group: Members
Posts: 2372
Joined: Oct. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 21 2013, 1:52 pm |
|
|
Just for the record, people like BB and gunslinger do *not* speak for gun owners who recognize that the gun control debate is not a zero sum game.
--------------
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 25
|
GoBlueHiker
Obsessive Island Hopper...
Group: Members
Posts: 14071
Joined: Jul. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 21 2013, 2:06 pm |
|
|
(tomas @ Jan. 21 2013, 11:52 am)
QUOTE Just for the record, people like BB and gunslinger do *not* speak for gun owners who recognize that the gun control debate is not a zero sum game.
FWIW, I agree with you. For the record, I don't automatically support any weapons ban until seeing the details, what it covers, and how it would play out in the public. I think at this point in the game, most bans would prove ineffective. I do, however, support closing the loophole that only requires background checks from licensed dealers (leaving private dealers and gun shows to sell to whomever they want whenever they want, even to convicted violent felons who are already barred from having such weapons). I find it funny the NRA types suggest "we should just enforce the laws we already have" while simultaneously fighting any attempt to do precisely that.
I guess that puts me somewhat "on the fence" on the issue. It's just that the non-stop ridiculous comments by BB and the like have me siding with the "anti-gun" folks more often than not around here, for the sole reason of not agreeing with idiocy. Doesn't make me anti-gun though. When I take my family to visit a backcountry cabin in Alaska in a couple years, I plan to have a rifle along with me, and I don't wish to give up the right to take one along. But that hardly leaves me agreeing with the NRA extremist positions, which IMO are doing more to hurt balanced firearm rights than help them in the long run.
- Mike
--------------
Wealth needs more. Happiness needs less. Simplify.
www.RainForestTreks.com
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 26
|
|
|
| Post Number: 27
|
|
|
| Post Number: 28
|
tomas
Group: Members
Posts: 2372
Joined: Oct. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 21 2013, 3:35 pm |
|
|
(big_load @ Jan. 21 2013, 2:57 pm)
QUOTE
(Drift Woody @ Jan. 21 2013, 10:44 am)
QUOTE Rush Limbaugh recently spewed:
"If a lot of African-Americans back in the '60s had guns and the legal right to use them for self-defense, you think they would have needed Selma?" He continued, "If John Lewis, who says he was beat upside the head, if John Lewis had had a gun, would he have been beat upside the head on the bridge?" I'm surprised that anyone considers this a viable line of reasoning. Maybe it sells to people that are predisposed to agree, but anyone who was alive at the time would have to admit it's an eye-popping retake on our political history. The faction making this argument now is roughly the same bunch who considered armed black people a threat second only to communism.
This is the same faction which threw a hissy fit over Bill Ayers and the Weathermen! If you look at their writings at the time all they were doing is taking up an armed struggle against a tyrannical government - which is one of the arguments being forwarded regarding the need for so-called assault weapons. But most of us would agree that the Weathermen were a domestic terrorist organization.
--------------
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 29
|
Drift Woody
Group: Members
Posts: 5308
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 21 2013, 4:16 pm |
|
|
Give some thought to the faction that insists on owning assault weapons today, then give some more thought to what would happen if they actually won an armed conflict to overthrow the government. The leaders they follwed into power would be a greater tyranny than our current Republic, however dysfunctional it may be.
--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 30
|
Old Frank
Group: Members
Posts: 624
Joined: Sep. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 21 2013, 4:27 pm |
|
|
Was 99% sure Limbaugh was unstable. Now 100%.
--------------
My favorite compliment: "GrandPa, I've seen other old men, and their faces are a whole lot cruddier than yours is".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
