OOPS! Facts creating a problem for you? And I would still like an answer to whether or not you think William Ayers' participation in the bombings of NYPD and the US Capitol was also fictional.
Will you take the word of the New York Times? William Ayers himself said, "I don't regret setting bombs". View attachment 1199
But.... In 1973, new information came to light about FBI operations targeted against Weather Underground and the New Left, all part of a series of covert and often illegal FBI projects called COINTEL. Due to the illegal tactics of FBI agents involved with the program, government attorneys requested all weapons- and bomb-related charges be dropped against the Weather Underground, including charges against Ayers. And what was the Weather Underground so against that they resorted to bombing government buildings? The Vietnam War which as we all know was a BS war trumped up by politicians and killed 58,000 U.S. kids. I don't say that their methods justified what they were trying to accomplish but the U.S. Government was not innocent either as history and their lack of a convictions has proven since those days.
So you are saying because the government made a mistake in collecting their evidence, both what Ayers said and what the bombings he admitted to did not occur?
And your point is.....? William Ayers is a self-admitted domestic terrorist. He said he had "no regret setting bombs" and "[he] didn't do enough". Yet, somehow, you think he's a rational human being? William Ayers is EXACTLY the type of deranged, violence-oriented danger to society that should be the focus of mental health officials when determining whether or not someone should be able to bear a firearm. His statements indicate propensity toward violence. His actions prove it. Only someone like you would find William Ayers "rational". That one really takes the cake, Little Joe. You called for burning down the State House in Wisconsin and for violence in the streets. Perhaps any new orders that Obama passes will give law enforcement the ability to track forums such as this in real-time, immediately demand your true identity without a warrant and keep people like you from bearing a firearm based upon your propensity toward violence.
Dodge and spin, Little Joe. Dodge and spin... But, seriously, do you really think William Ayers is a rational human being?
I think he IS a rational human being. I think whatever his role WAS way back in the 60's, was fairly irrational during a time in this country's history when the country itself wasn't very rational. You fail to understand the context of the history you are judging. So what else is new eh?
You only think William Ayers IS rational because you agree with his irrational thinking in addition to dismissing his actions in the context of the times. That's ludicrous because any action anyone takes at any point in time could thusly be so dismissed. I'm certain many people think Terry Nichols* IS a rational person too, but I wouldn't want him carrying a firearm. Do you think Ayers should be allowed to carry a firearm? * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Nichols
Don't try to tell me what I think. That is the quickest way to get me to ignore your posts. Ask me what I think and then try to listen.
Calm down. Don't get violent. So, please... tell us what you think. Do you think William Ayers should be allowed to bear a firearm? I'm listening.
Let's look at the facts. He hasn't been convicted of any crime. We still have the Second Amendment you love so much. So whether you believe he is violent or not, he has the right to bear a firearm. What I think about his rights doesn't matter because the NRA will fight tooth and nail to guarantee that Ayers has the right to carry a weapon if he chooses. I couldn't care less if Ayers owns a gun or not but you have to admit that it is his right. You won't but only because you are a hypocrite.
You're correct. He hasn't been found guilty of the violent crimes to which he confessed. But, that doesn't mean that he's mentally stable enough to possess a firearm. For instance, let's suppose i make the statement, "I'd like to burn down the State House in Nebraska and I think violence in the streets of Omaha is justified". If you were the judge in charge of determining whether or not I receive a gun permit, would such a statement give you reason to suspect I might be mentally unstable? Why, yes it might. Or, for instance, let's say I construct bombs and set them off at the Los Angeles Police Department headquarters and at the Supreme Court of the United States. Because of a technicality, I'm not charged with the crime but I readily admit I constructed the bombs and set them off. Would those actions make you think twice about issuing me a gun permit? Again, yes they should. In fact, they should make any sane person think twice about issuing someone a gun permit. Yes, but no thanks to the liberals in this country who are trying to destroy it. Actually, there's no question about it. He proved himself to be a violent man. Yes, as a citizen of the United States, he has a right to bear a firearm. Our government takes away rights every day for certain individuals without taking away the rights of everyone (felons aren't allowed to vote, for example). As one who has no problem with our government restricting rights for certain individuals, do you believe that our government should restrict Williams Ayers's right to bear a firearm based upon his history of violence? It's really a simple question, yes or no. Well, certainly it matters. That's what this forum is all about. Please, express your opinion. What does the NRA have to do with our rights? They didn't write the Constitution nor do they guarantee our rights. If you feel the NRA is sort of a "watchdog group" like the ACLU who does everything in its power to see that an oppressive government doesn't abuse our rights nor take them away without cause then I can see your point. But, the NRA does nothing to guarantee your Second Amendment right. That's up to the government. But, you seem to care whether or not anyone else has a gun. Why is that? Do you really want self-admitted violent people like William Ayers roaming our streets with a gun? I've admitted he has the right (see above), so I would appreciate an apology regarding your "hypocrite" remark.
The funny part is that Ayers took up arms against what he considered to be a tyrannical government which is exactly what the gun nuts on the Right are arguing they need guns to do in the same situation. I wonder why Ayers isn't their hero? He did exactly what they claim they'd do if the government was out of control. Maybe they are just a bunch of pussies and Ayers actually had the courage of his convictions and they don't.
So if I follow you, you think "the gun nuts" and Ayers should be on the same side. Since you agree with Ayers, that means that you agree with "the gun nuts". I will have to work on that a bit.
His definition of "tyrannical" certainly didn't jibe with the majority of citizens. Anyway, you still haven't answered the question I've been asking you throughout this thread...
Neither does the definition of Obama as tyrannical but the whacky Right wingers can't seem to figure that out. I think the fact the the FBI was so corrupt that they couldn't even convict these guys, and the fact that our president at the time, old tricky dicky was forced under threat of impeachment to resign for ineptly having his operatives burglarize the DNC's campaign office, and the fact that the Vietnam War was a trumped up quagmire, says that Ayers and his group were definitely dealing with an out of control tyrannical government. What is Obama guilty of? Trying to bring health care to millions of people in this country who have no access to the health care system. Trying to prevent mass school shootings with assault weapons. Ooow! The tyranny! Face it, the term tyranny is just an overblown hyperbolic load of nonsense and only the very unpopular Republican Party whackos have the idiocy to even utter it in public.
