Quote of the day

posted at 9:30 pm on April 5, 2009 by Allahpundit

“Mr. Poplawski’s view of guns and personal freedom took a turn toward the fringes of American politics. With Mr. Perkovic, he appeared to share a belief that the government was controlled from unseen forces, that troops were being shipped home from the Mideast to police the citizenry here, and that Jews secretly ran the country

Believing most media were covering up important events, Mr. Poplawski turned to a far-right conspiracy Web site run by Alex Jones, a self-described documentarian with roots going back to the extremist militia movement of the early 1990s.

Around the same time, he joined Florida-based Stormfront, which has long been a clearinghouse Web site for far-right groups. He posted photographs of his tattoo, an eagle spread across his chest.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

Secondly, I believe in the 2nd amendment as much as anyone, but I’ve never understood why there is no ban on assault rifles. With that being said, I also worry about what’s happening with our freedoms under the ogabe admin.

This is what I mean. Republicans say “We care about your freedoms” then they talk about banning firearms, or warrantless searches, phone wiretapping, etc. It’s this weird cognitive dissonance, and I thought it would change a little bit post-election.

The Dean on April 6, 2009 at 7:02 AM

Secondly, I believe in the 2nd amendment as much as anyone, but I’ve never understood why there is no ban on assault rifles. With that being said, I also worry about what’s happening with our freedoms under the ogabe admin.

“I’m a Republican and I’m very concerned about our freedoms, but I do want to ban your weapons and tap your phone lines, and take a peek into your computer hard drive…”

The Dean on April 6, 2009 at 7:04 AM

Oops, I thought it froze up on me the first time. Government must already be getting into here..

The Dean on April 6, 2009 at 7:06 AM

Which Republican wants to ban firearms?

OhioCoastie on April 6, 2009 at 7:12 AM

was raised by a single mother and loved the first amendment.

monotonousboy on April

So his mom was perhaps a feminist? Ann Coulter warned us about single moms.

JellyToast on April 6, 2009 at 7:13 AM

The US Constitution was written by rebels from the absolute rule of a monarch/dictator liberals.
That makes liberals the radical pro-US constitution party. Otherwise known as the US left.

sesquipedalian on April 6, 2009 at 7:38 AM

The biggest obvious absurdity here is,,, what about Bill Ayers??? Bill Ayers is just a Timothy McVeigh who got away with it!! And our President started his political campaign out of this bomber’s house!!! He lives in the same freaking neighborhood as this terrorist!!!
With the left,,, there is never guilt by association!! They can give our enemies talking points,, they can root for the same thing as the terrorists do,, they wine and dine with scumbags from all around the world,, and our President can sit in the church for 20 freaking years yet not have any association with its pastor,,, a pastor who said we deserved 911,,, Obama has no association with that man!! None at all!!! Obama has no association with Bill Ayers!! none at all!!
Yet let some nutcase wack job go commit murder and mayhem and suddenly all conservatives are guilty by association!!
No ,, the left can actually engage in real Fascism yet never are they fascists!!! They can actually engage in McCarthy type tactics demanding names of innocent people in congressional hearings yet never will they be accused of McCarthyism!!
Maybe we need a witch hunt against people who wear tattoos on their chests! Maybe people who like eagles have a tendency toward murder! Did this guy smoke?? Obama smokes! Did he ever use any illegal drugs?? Did Obama?? Did he ever watch CBS??? NBC??? We need to find out!!
You know,, Hitler had a thing for movie stars. Any politicians ever covert with movie stars??? If so,, maybe we need to check that out!! Hitler hated tobacco! Any politicians hate tobacco too?? Maybe we need to check that out as well!
If the left in the media want to play this game,, then conservatives need to be prepared how to address it!! Head on!!

JellyToast on April 6, 2009 at 7:41 AM

That makes liberals the radical pro-US constitution party. Otherwise known as the US left.

sesquipedalian on April 6, 2009 at 7:38 AM

laughable. seriously delusional. you revolution was the French revolution…you know THE TERRROR.

the ‘liberal’ society is a fascist/socialist state kinda like nazi germany or the soviet union.

right4life on April 6, 2009 at 7:53 AM

The US Constitution was written by liberals.

squishpedo on April 6, 2009 at 7:38 AM

So why shouldn’t liberals be the ones to tear it up?

Jim Treacher on April 6, 2009 at 8:02 AM

I’m sure this was mentioned but I didnt read all the responses… this guy sounds like a ultra hard core libertarian with more than a little lunatic in him. I dont know if you want to classify that as “right wing” or not. I mean in the sense that Ron Paul is right wing I suppose so. Or that Alex Jones is “right wing”? I think he’s just out there in his own little world and happens to have some ideas that coincide with conservatives (gun rights) and some that coincide with liberals (9/11 inside job!)

Dash on April 6, 2009 at 8:19 AM

I haven’t had time to read the comments… I just wanted to mention that many liberal/leftist elites, and even members of our own State Department, believe that the ‘Jews run the country’ (like, you know, the “neo-cons”), so to attribute this paranoia as something which is exclusively in the domain of fringe kooks on the right would be a mistake.

Buy Danish on April 6, 2009 at 8:59 AM

Anarchist = Conservative? EPIC FAIL.

Next thing we’ll hear is that Allahpundit is a conservative, too. *Chuckle*

Is it too much to expect American citizens to appreciate the difference between these two groups? Anarchists are more frequently located somewhere between libertarians and ultra-progressives. They have about as much to do with conservatives or Republicans as Hillary Clinton. That is, there are certain, extremely limited commonalities, but nothing more than that.

“Oh, he’s an anti-semite. Must be a conservative!” Um, actually, that would be the progressive Left and their Hamas-loving selves.

cackcon on April 6, 2009 at 9:03 AM

Secondly, I believe in the 2nd amendment as much as anyone, but I’ve never understood why there is no ban on assault rifles.
Sweet_Thang

If A is true, B cannot follow. I don’t think you are a believer in the 2nd amendment as it was written. The very name “assault rifle” is meaningless until you can clearly define it. What is your criteria for banning firearms?
First, I’m guessing you may well identify an “assault rifle” by it’s appearance. This means nothing from the standpoint of practicality and purpose. That it looks military is irrelevant to it’s function. Do you really want to ban anything on appearance alone?
If you oppose semi-auto function, then you have just set yourself in opposition to a vast number of firearms that
don’t look military at all. My Glenfield Model 60 in .22 most definitely doesn’t look military but it is semi-auto (self loading with one trigger pull = one shot). Neither do Remington semi automatic hunting rifles look anything like military arms. Yet I have an old bolt action Moisin-Nagant that may have picked off a few Germans in WWII that is most decidedly a military weapon but isn’t semi-auto.
Are we talking magazine capacity? My compact ten-round 40 cal can spit out those ten rounds pretty fast and then I can drop the magazine and pop in another in two to three seconds. Revolvers: six rounds as fast as you can pull the trigger and then speedload six more in two to three seconds. Good gun handlers can do it faster than that.
Is it caliber you object to? Most popular military calibers are available in semi-auto, bolt action and even single shot rifle and some pistols for civilian use. The most popular hunting caliber of all time, the 30-06, was our standard military cartrige from WWI through WWII and was supplanted by the .308 (which is only a 30-06 shortened by a bit for the M14 rifle. This was replaced by the 5.56mm whose civilian counterpart is the 223 (almost identical – you can shoot 223 in a 5.56 weapon but not the other way around). All the above are prime hunting calibers and we’d be poorer without them.
Finally, if you are referring to full-auto weapons, access to those is restricted by several laws and heavy license fees. Go back through FBI crime statistics and see how many full-auto weapons have been used in the commission of crimes over the past ten years. I don’t know the numbers but I’m willing to bet heavily that the number is tiny, if any at all.
I don’t mean to hammer on you over this and I know I ramble on, but the whole “assault rifle” thing just grates on me when people throw it around and can’t defend it.
I welcome corrections to the above if I’ve erred on any of my facts.

SKYFOX on April 6, 2009 at 9:04 AM

The US Constitution was written by liberals.

sesquipedalian on April 6, 2009 at 7:38 AM

You modern liberals do love to take liberties with reality, don’t you.

You might be able to call the founding fathers libertarian, but they were never liberal. Only an extremely sick mind could make that connection.

MarkTheGreat on April 6, 2009 at 9:10 AM

SKYFOX on April 6, 2009 at 9:04 AM

Here is how it is defined in Massachusetts in case you are curious. More at the link.

Chapter 140: Section 121. Firearms sales; definitions; antique firearms; application of law; exceptions

“Assault weapon”, shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994, and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the weapons, or copies or duplicates of the weapons, of any caliber, known as: (i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK) (all models); (ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; (iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70); (iv) Colt AR-15; (v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR and FNC; (vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9 and M-12; (vi) Steyr AUG; (vii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and (viii) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as, or similar to, the Street Sweeper and Striker 12; provided, however, that the term assault weapon shall not include: (i) any of the weapons, or replicas or duplicates of such weapons, specified in appendix A to 18 U.S.C. section 922 as appearing in such appendix on September 13, 1994, as such weapons were manufactured on October 1, 1993; (ii) any weapon that is operated by manual bolt, pump, lever or slide action; (iii) any weapon that has been rendered permanently inoperable or otherwise rendered permanently unable to be designated a semiautomatic assault weapon; (iv) any weapon that was manufactured prior to the year 1899; (v) any weapon that is an antique or relic, theatrical prop or other weapon that is not capable of firing a projectile and which is not intended for use as a functional weapon and cannot be readily modified through a combination of available parts into an operable assault weapon; (vi) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds of ammunition; or (vii) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than five rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.

TheBigOldDog on April 6, 2009 at 9:12 AM

I’m sorry, but who did Alex Jones support for President?

BohicaTwentyTwo on April 6, 2009 at 9:25 AM

Which Republican wants to ban firearms?

OhioCoastie on April 6, 2009 at 7:12 AM

The one hanging from the tree outside the Sarah Palin rally?

capitulus on April 6, 2009 at 9:37 AM

Alex Jones was the idiot who tried to incite the crowd to injure Michelle Malkin at Denver.

carbon_footprint on April 6, 2009 at 9:39 AM

Secondly, I believe in the 2nd amendment as much as anyone, but I’ve never understood why there is no ban on assault rifles. With that being said, I also worry about what’s happening with our freedoms under the ogabe admin.
This is what I mean. Republicans say “We care about your freedoms” then they talk about banning firearms, or warrantless searches, phone wiretapping, etc. It’s this weird cognitive dissonance, and I thought it would change a little bit post-election.

The Dean on April 6, 2009 at 7:02 AM

Let me clarify my thoughts. I have a son in Law Enforcement, and the thought of what happened in Oakland and Pittsburgh has me deeply concerned. Mixon reportedly murdered two policeman with an assault rifle while hidden behind a closet door. The Pittsburgh killer used an AK-47 to murder 3 policemen.

My first point is why the hell was it ever made legal to own automatic weapons? The offset to this is that banning them now would not prevent criminals like Mixon from getting and using them. Overriding all of this is my concern for any loss of freedoms that the current US socialist regime wants to impose on us. I don’t trust Hopenchains and his minions, and I certainly don’t like the path he has us on.

Call me ambivalent. I’ve been called worse.

Sweet_Thang on April 6, 2009 at 9:48 AM

Boy, old April has really honed her trolling skills. She’s another one who equated Palin and her family with trailer trash and should have been banned. Fortunately for her, Allahpundit has zero credibility and is a troll himself.

Blake on April 6, 2009 at 9:55 AM

Morons need not assume that I have anything but contempt for the overgrown bully and juvenile delinquent gone adult @sswipe Poplawski.

That said, it’s a truly enlightened person who disagrees about everything over one point of opinion. Namely, Alex Jones can’t be right about anything because he is wrong about X in Y’s opinion.

THOSE WHO KNOW Alex Jones know that he is absolutely opposed to taking up arms as Poplawski did. Alex Jones uses the media to expose radical issues and directs his supporters energies to the ballot poll for effective change.

Alex Jones IS out there and needs to be taken with a grain of salt. But he has made more valid points than Allahpundit who only points fingers depending upon which way the wind blows.

Too easy to deepen the shaft on your competition, Allapundit. Careful there, cheap shot. Alex Jones got mentioned out of context. And don’t think that any conservative website is off the hook. Dig deeper and find Poplawski’s trace on HotAir files, or LGF or Ace of Spades, where ever he may have visited and left a comment or enlisted automated e-mail updates, perhaps from the RNC. Hell, leave it to Carl Cameron to fabricate for the Left to regurgitate and abrakadabra, it’s not just news, but you are now officially a demon on record.

Quoting Roddy as if Roddy knows all leaves you as a clip artist. Since the Catholic high school asked Poplawski to leave, the Catholic Church got exonerated by By Dennis B. Roddy, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette who also failed to mention which branch of the military Poplawski joined before getting the official reprimand boot out. Had Mr. Roddy a personal grudge against either the Catholic Church or the US Military (or HotAir), he’d have colored his presentation negatively against those institutions as well.

It’s too easy, negatively labeling the one who sees how far gone things were heading and have already gone. But that’s your forte, Allap, lacking your own intestinal fortitude to put yourself on the conservative line. You’re a cheap shot artist with lack of vision and lack of integrity. Compared to Alex Jones, you are a worm. Take responsibility for smearing your competitor, broadcasting every person’s name and address who donated to Jones in your own witch hunt during your primary tar and feather campaign against Ron Paul. Rather than educating, you flamed for fun. Ron Paul’s another victim of Michelle & Co. who wouldn’t concede him ANY validity because Paul exhibited his own age’s style vs. the faux PC mannerisms that critics alternately wear and discard according to their own whims. Tacky.

The point is, don’t demonize forces on the fringe that are more accurate than off base just because you’re chicken shit to go that far scouting what’s beyond your own view.

(Background info: So far as HotAir prejudice may be concerned, Mr. Jones did not know and certainly did not endorse the Truthers attack on Michell Malkin; he roundly denounced them and apologized directly to Michelle.)

maverick muse on April 6, 2009 at 10:22 AM

carbon_footprint is incorrect in this instance. Mr. Jones did not know and certainly did not endorse the Truthers attack on Michell Malkin; he roundly denounced them and apologized directly to Michelle.

maverick muse on April 6, 2009 at 10:28 AM

maverick muse

I’m not familiar with this event and I don’t know Mr. Jones, but why did he apologize for something he didn’t do?
Has he actually endorsed fringe activities? I think I should research this guy, now that I have time on my hands thanks to the Obameconomy.

SKYFOX on April 6, 2009 at 10:41 AM

TheBigOldDog

If I understand it, the MA guideline is based on appearance and magazine capacity (fixed or removeable). Is that about it?

SKYFOX on April 6, 2009 at 10:46 AM

Who the hell is Alex Jones????? Is he smuggling guns into Mexico?????

RealDemocrat on April 6, 2009 at 11:09 AM

No way that a true God-fearing, constitution-defending conservative actually wrote that comment defending assault weapons bans.
 
No way.
 
I’m almost certain that the Founding Fathers would not have, had they thought more about it, protected only Daiseys and shotguns.
 
They didn’t protect our firearms so we could hunt, folks. That’s just how liberals address it to sneak ever-more-encroaching laws onto the books limiting your freedoms:
 
“You don’t need assualt weaopns to shoot a deer.” But, you see, we DO to protect our land/family/country from you.

CLaFarge on April 6, 2009 at 11:21 AM

OMNIBUS THREAD RESPONSE OF 2009

1.A — jim treacher
By the way, you’re not fooling anybody.

jim, i don’t care whether any of you apply the libtroll label to me – either as an orthodoxy enforcement pejorative, or out of an earnest conviction that i am in fact an arch leftist out to harm your orthodoxy. either way it has the same substance as if you were to plug your ears and yell, “i’m not listening!” like a child would.

the fact that i’ve been candid about is that i’ve all but given up trying to reconcile my beliefs with the erratic and ruinous tides of the movement.

that’s the change i’ve gone through. the change you seem to have gone through is to devolve from once being an often-clever blogger into some kind of pitiful ed mcmahon impersonation, slinging out rubbish one-liners in the comments section at hotair.

1.B — surrounded

Speaking strictly for yourself, right?

doesn’t even make sense. clearly not, since i’ve never had anything to do with immigration reform derangement and have only been critical of it.

“i know you are but what am i?” is, once again, a child’s retort, and you look like a clown saying it. it’s as if you walked into a room with shit caked on the heel of your shoe, someone told you so, and you said, “nuh uh! you got shit on your shoe.”

1.C — aengus

“A nation without borders is not a nation.”

- Ronald Reagan

also by reagan: amnesty!

1.D — canopfor

Here’s the website,of Alex Jones screaming at Michelle
Malkin. …Michelle Malkin Stalked and Threatened by 9-11 Trither!

…and when it comes to her contrived rage about chickens being stolen 1,600 miles to her southwest, she gets approving links on the stormfront forums.

1.E — ColtsFan

So you favor identity theft?? So you think Social Security fraud is a good thing?

i don’t favor these things. i think the disproportionate rage focused on these petty larcenies can only serve to cause others to wonder what it is that really troubles the border enforcement nutters. worried about identity theft? shred your mail. the appropriate device can be obtained at walgreens for less than twenty bucks. the 9-11 hijackers weren’t mexican and they didn’t sneak across the border. ms-13, i’m afraid, is not menacing the streets of wyoming and is no more a national security issue than the crips. as mayor giuliani correctly noted, entering the country illegally is a misdemeanor, not a grave or fatal transgression of our nation’s founding principles. a border wall or fence will not keep a single mexican from crossing into the country and will only serve as an emblem of government waste. a fence to nowhere for nothing.

these are silly, contrived red herrings.

1.F — RightOFLeft

illegal immigration is a catastrophic problem for the border states. Every country limits immigration, every country has borders. No doubt many racists oppose illegal immigration for all the wrong reasons. A broken clock and all…

in other words, it’s a local problem. conservatives, i seem to remember from some hazy memory of a distant past, seem to have once had a position on the proper place of local problems in national politics…what was that?

ah, but some rancher suffering a broken fence and a couple of stolen chickens is a BFD for some guy in indiana or utah. that makes sense. no reason to look for alternate explanations for his prepossessing, pants-pissing rage over the matter.

the organized anti-illegal immigration movement has a long and rich pedigree which spans back much further than 2005, when it seems to me that the mainstream conservative movement latched on to it’s cause. i’ve noted this before, just as i’ve noted that those origins are basically when a green neo-malthusian lefty forged alliances with established white nationalists.

the pre-existence and origins of that movement so understood, i’m going to tell you the same thing i tell “moderate progressives” who want to defend their participation in stalinist and maoist-orchestrated “antiwar” rallies on the grounds that it’s “unfair” to group them with the commies on account of their discrete agreement on that one issue: you participate in their initiatives. you adopt their cause – not the other way around.

2.A — Tark

I don’t consider stormfront, vdare, and the Rockford institute part of the core conservative movement, but nobody can deny that there’s some shit from those sites trying to ride in on our shoes. People need to be aware of the white supremacists because those associations carry a stench that doesn’t come out.

this is in essence all i’ve ever said, and why. congrats. you are a “libtroll” now.

i would note that malkin publishes at vdare.

2.B — Tark

(stormfronters supported ron paul) …because he’s tied to the Lew Rockwell axis of the Rockford institute

Jenfidel suggested that there are also the anti-semitic and anti-war issues. paleo-libertarians are not by any means doctrinally anti-semitic. many jews are paleo-libertarian gods. i don’t think this is a fair charge against the von mises set.

the real point of intersection is grand conspiracy.

on the rockwell side, there is the cause of abolishing the federal reserve system.

the intermediary is bircherism, which sees the federal reserve as the conspiracy’s economic weapon, used in concert with the conspiracy’s foreign policy weapon, the council on foreign relations.

the identity of the conspirators in the bircherite telling is left ambiguous in racial terms. though the principals named are jews and are known collectively as “the bilderberg group”, bircherites go out of their way though to note that this says little about jews as a race or a culture, noting that these families originally derive their power and fortune as the court finance ministers of european royalty.

of course on the neo-nazi, white supremacist side, it’s all just the jewish conspiracy, which in post-war racialist movements (yes, even mecha) has basically supplanted the volkish nationalist ideology as the rallying point of belief.

this is why i say that jonah goldberg’s excellent analysis of the european fascist movements’ kinship with american progressivism is inoperative when discussing american racialists. american racialism and neo-nazism aren’t doctrines about economics or the role of the state. they’re a conspiratorial pseudo-religion dedicated primarily to suspecting jews. that’s all that those swastika tattoos and ss cloisonne pins retain in substance from the nazis regime that was. nothing more.

2.C — Guardian

Zombie over at LGF sums it up pretty well:

(clipped)

this is why zombie is smarter than all of us.

2.D — Ric

…another poster tried to equivocate this loons ideology with the authoritarian left. I was just pushing back against Buckaroo’s erroneous idea.

that was my only aim as well.

the effectiveness of dropping robert byrd’s name plummets to zero when actual white supremacists call themselves conservatives and high-profile conservatives associate themselves with “white nationalist” publications and causes. a respectable movement which honors pluralism and equality under the law needs to actually affirmatively push itself away from racial demagogues. otherwise, it’s like tossing back a grenade after it’s already exploded on half your men.

eh on April 6, 2009 at 11:37 AM

(Background info: So far as HotAir prejudice may be concerned, Mr. Jones did not know and certainly did not endorse the Truthers attack on Michell Malkin; he roundly denounced them and apologized directly to Michelle.)

maverick muse on April 6, 2009 at 10:22 AM

BULL$HIT! Alex Jones HIMSELF attack Michelle Malkin in Denver and called for her death, the VIDEO doesn’t lie!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU42hL0T18c

nelsonknows on April 6, 2009 at 12:10 PM

Michelle should’ve kicked Alex Jones in the balls, wait…he doesn’t have any, he ran like a scalded dog from me.

nelsonknows on April 6, 2009 at 12:15 PM

The US Constitution was written by rebels from the absolute rule of a monarch/dictator liberals.
That makes liberals the radical pro-US constitution party. Otherwise known as the US left.

sesquipedalian on April 6, 2009 at 7:38 AM

The American Rebels were a mix of what we would today call extreme libertarians and the extreme religious right. The then equivalent of left-liberals were monarchists. And in fact one can still find left-liberals arguing that the Revolutionary War was a bad idea and it would have been better had America lost.

18-1 on April 6, 2009 at 12:27 PM

Alex Jones was the idiot who tried to incite the crowd to injure Michelle Malkin at Denver.

carbon_footprint on April 6, 2009 at 9:39 AM

I remember. He was mad about Michelle having justified Japaneese internment during WWII.

saiga on April 6, 2009 at 1:01 PM

“Right” = means to be lawful and for justice.

The minute someone breaks the law, they move away from the right.

Why can’t people get it right?

ironmonk on April 6, 2009 at 2:26 PM

Well the libs are in full stride now to take away our right to keep and bear arms. This lunatic nazi has seen to that. Now we have to fight this battle all over again with the Dems in charge of the white house and the congress. All it will take is one or two supreme court appointements to change our nation forever. The issue is how do we influence congress to prevent this from happening. 2010 is a long way away to get some conservative with backbone back into congress.

kanda on April 6, 2009 at 2:38 PM

ah, but some rancher suffering a broken fence and a couple of stolen chickens is a BFD for some guy in indiana or utah. that makes sense. no reason to look for alternate explanations for his prepossessing, pants-pissing rage over the matter.

eh on April 6, 2009 at 11:37 AM

A couple of stolen chickens? My hometown of Phoenix has some of the highest rates of identity theft, car theft, kidnapping, and probably others. It’s the 17th “most dangerous” city in the country. Tucson is 18th. LA county is 19th. It’s impossible to get a low-skilled job in the Phoenix area for a decent wage. Our health care system (which is surprisingly progressive for a fairly conservative state) is hemorrhaging money. Our school system is similarly taxed with students who, despite having the same potential to learn as any legal residents, are caught in a system that can’t teach them in the only language they know how to speak.

Phoenix has always benefited from a moderate amount of illegal immigration, but we’re way over capacity here and we could really use some help from the federal government (which is supposed to be responsible for maintaining the border).

Since I’m pissing you off, I may as well piss everybody else off. McCain-Kennedy would have really helped out. Since we all know Republicans have no plans to cut off a cheap source of labor for their business constituents, we may as well give illegal immigrants a stake in our country’s well-being. They also wouldn’t make such convenient targets of violent crimes if they felt secure that reporting it wouldn’t land them back in Mexico. The Z-card would’ve made manageable finding out who is in our country legitimately to find work, and who’s here at the behest of the drug cartels that effectively run South America.

9/11 never would’ve happened if we had a sane border policy. Even though the hijackers didn’t come through the souther border, nearly all, if not all, were living here illegally. The same policies that deprive ICE of the resources to staunch the flood of illegal immigration at the southern border prevented them from finding and deporting 19 very dangerous illegal immigrants.

This isn’t Ellis Island. This is the modern world, with modern problems. Organized crime has more resources than law enforcement. The U.S. isn’t some upstart far removed from international politics. We’re the epicenter of international politics, and there are well-funded organizations that exist for no other purpose than to do us harm. Massive social spending initiated in the great depression has doubled or tripled the cost of accommodating any new arrivals. The United States has matured, and now our border policy has to mature.

RightOFLeft on April 6, 2009 at 4:08 PM

Secondly, I believe in the 2nd amendment as much as anyone, but I’ve never understood why there is no ban on assault rifles.

Actually true “assault rifles” have been banned in this country for a long time. Real assault rifles (those used by the military) can be fired fully automatically. (one trigger pull discharging multiple rounds…you see it in movies all the time… people “spraying” an area with bullets until the magazine is empty). It’s the confusion between full automatic and semi-automatic capability that is what a lot of the stink is about.

Many hunting rifles are semi-automatic. (meaning one discharge per trigger pull until the magazine is empty…. no ability to depress the trigger and”spray” an area with bullets.

Other types of non-semi-automatic rifles are Lever action and bolt action rifles where a round has to be physically loaded into the firing chamber before each trigger pull and subsiquent discharge. (many times meaning that you don’t get a second shot at that Elk).

So the bottom line is….. don’t worry about “assault weapons”, they’re already banned.

Ernest on April 6, 2009 at 4:17 PM

I’m sorry, but who did Alex Jones support for President?

BohicaTwentyTwo on April 6, 2009 at 9:25 AM

Ron Paul.

AprilOrit on April 6, 2009 at 8:07 PM

Secondly, I believe in the 2nd amendment as much as anyone, but I’ve never understood why there is no ban on assault rifles.

Ok, let’s just make this perfectly clear. CRIMINALS. WHO. WANT. THE. WEAPONS. ARE. STILL. GOING. TO. GET. THEM. WHILE. LAW-ABIDDING. CITIZENS. ARE. THE. ONES. TO. SUFFER. FOR. IT.

Even so, look at what happened with England and Australia. There crime rates are really high and the gangs *gasp* still have access to illegal weapons.

Last point, it always starts off with one thing, ‘Oh you guys don’t need assault weapons.’ ‘Oh you guys don’t need semi-automatic hangung.’ ‘Oh you guys don’t need rifles… here’s a b-b gun.’ ‘Oh you guys don’t need the b-b gun you might put your eye out with that thing.’

scrubbiedude on April 6, 2009 at 8:42 PM

Secondly, I believe in the 2nd amendment as much as anyone, but I’ve never understood why there is no ban on assault rifles.
Ok, let’s just make this perfectly clear. CRIMINALS. WHO. WANT. THE. WEAPONS. ARE. STILL. GOING. TO. GET. THEM. WHILE. LAW-ABIDDING. CITIZENS. ARE. THE. ONES. TO. SUFFER. FOR. IT.

Even so, look at what happened with England and Australia. There crime rates are really high and the gangs *gasp* still have access to illegal weapons.

Last point, it always starts off with one thing, ‘Oh you guys don’t need assault weapons.’ ‘Oh you guys don’t need semi-automatic hangung.’ ‘Oh you guys don’t need rifles… here’s a b-b gun.’ ‘Oh you guys don’t need the b-b gun you might put your eye out with that thing.’

scrubbiedude on April 6, 2009 at 8:42 PM

The better question is why were the cops in Pittsburgh only armed with 9 MMs?

AprilOrit on April 6, 2009 at 8:52 PM

They should have shot that wackjob in the head and saved everyone the pain, expense of trial and jailing the creep.

AprilOrit on April 6, 2009 at 8:55 PM

Try this.

There’s a few scattered boos but its mostly people clapping and yelling.

scrubbiedude on April 6, 2009 at 9:19 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5