<font color="#ffccff">Clooneys remarks are callous and mean, he is showing that he is in fact a person of low character and no class. He has the right in this country however to make a complete ass of himself.
It just goes to show that the left and their talk of everyone having the right to their opinion, wether it is about gays, war, guns or drugs...Unless that opinion is from someone on the right, the anti-war demonstrators this weekend were quite happy to attack and harm the pro-bush supporters who were out. Oh yes, lets get rid of guns, war and people who want to own guns and support the president...they don't have the right to THEIR opinions. You really have to love the hypocracy of the left. </font> |
Thanks for taking the ribbing well, Elric.
Look, I'm glad that the NRA exists, and I'm glad it's namby-pamby leftist opposition exists. If either one ceased to exist, I would no longer be the reasonable middle-ground. ;) As for the KKK mention - look, folks, let's be real. The NRA is big in the south, where the KKK still exists. Surely, there will be some crossover members. I'm sure it is as embarrased by those members as any organization desiring credibility ought be. And, MagiK, the hypocricy of the left you mention (and I agree) obviously exists as well for the right too. I offer this very thread and all text typed or incorporated in it as evidence to support my claim. :D Finally, let's remember than any digression into gun ownership we take begins with one big note: you do not have carte blanche in this country to own guns. The feds, state, and local governments all dictate certain things about gun ownership - hurdles you must jump through or limits you must abide by. The 2nd Amendment is by no means absolute. Don't act like it is. |
Quote:
[ 01-21-2003, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: Rokenn ] |
Quote:
Then in an interview with Micheal Moore in Bowling for Columbine he defends it. |
Perhaps for a different thread but what the hell! TL your comment about absolute rights to gun ownership is interesting to be honest. Of all the Bill of Rights, why is this so, while the others ARE considered absolutes?
For instance, the VI guarantees everyone a fair and unbiased trial or better the XIII prohibits me from holding slaves (if in fact I, for some unkown reason decided I wanted one). Those *are* etched in stone, yet the SECOND one isnt it? Jefferson was very specific on the original configuration of the ammendments. shortened version "Our first is all about free excercise (religious freedom, speech and press), and the second guarantees the first." |
Quote:
Aslo, if you think that was the message of his 'joke' then you dont know George Clooney. Everyone knows he hates the NRA. IT WAS IN POOR TASTE. 'He annouced again today he had Alzhimers'. That had nothing to do with the NRA! He only mentioned the NRA when he was asked if he took it out of context. </font> |
Quote:
1st Amendment: Right to Speech - Any state or local government can limit the time/place and manner of speech - making you check local calendars and schedule your protest or gay parade at specified times. Also, some speech is NOT protected speech - like commercial speech. Right to Free Exercise of Religion - Basically abolished considering how much Justice Scalia limited it in his Smith v. Employment Division case. It got hit hard because in that case 2 Native Americans were fired from work for using peyote. They went to court seeking unemployment benefits based on the denial of their free exercise. You cannot, except in some cases, refuse health care or education to your kids, no matter what your religion states. You cannot kill, maim, or even violate cruelty to animals laws based on religion. Right to Freedom of the Press - very strong. But, again not absolute. Just ask the reporters surrounding Watergate, Whitewater, and Iran Contra. 8th Amendment: Prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. Basically abolished - no case has been won on this notion in decades. Note that death penalty is ruled not cruel and unusual. I have more examples, but not the time. Do an ALLTHEWEB search though and find out for yourself. |
I've liked George Clooney and though I haven't agreed with his politics, I understand it's his decision whether or not to use his celebrity status to put forward his cause or causes.
What I don't understand is his taking pleasure in discovering that someone has a horrid disease. He thinks it's a good thing simply because he disagrees with someone's politics and then uses his celebrity to publicly gloat? It's in the poorest of taste and actually belittles his position in the debate. "Hey guns are bad and they kill people, so lets wish death and dehabilitating diseases on all those who oppose us." Not too classy, and unfortunately, lets me know more about him as an individual than I wanted to know. :( Sean Penn? He cracks me up. He was hilarious in "Fast Times At Ridgemont High" and even funnier as a peace movement Hollywood guy who can't help but punch every cameraman within arm's reach. Too funny! [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] [ 01-21-2003, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ] |
Quote:
|
It is past time that we revived the House Un-American Activities Committee.
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:29 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2024 Ironworks Gaming & ©2024 The Great Escape Studios TM - All Rights Reserved