Has Civil War 2.0 already started and we just don't realize it yet? I heard today that Chris Kent and another strong 2a advocate were gunned down on a range by one of Obama's brownshirt thugs no doubt. Earlier it was one of the producers of FPS Russia, and we've seen the WH petition to hunt down and murder gun rights supporters who have done nothing to anyone. Are we already in a war and just don't know it?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Are we already at war?
- Thread starter Z1P2
- Start date
eye95
Well-known member
Only in the minds of people willing to jump to wild conclusions.
bellyfat
Regular Member
just sabre rattling so far
the lines are being drawn and the sabres are being rattled from both sides.
since the shooter of the navy seal has been arrested, we need to see who or what was behind that.
i think people like feinstien and bloomberg are just posturing to their supporters.
franstiens bill will be defeated, then she can blame it on the nra.
and bloombergs add on the superbowl will fall on deaf ears.
public opinion has already been determined and dancing on dead childrens body's will work against the anti's.....just my 2 1/2 cents.
the lines are being drawn and the sabres are being rattled from both sides.
since the shooter of the navy seal has been arrested, we need to see who or what was behind that.
i think people like feinstien and bloomberg are just posturing to their supporters.
franstiens bill will be defeated, then she can blame it on the nra.
and bloombergs add on the superbowl will fall on deaf ears.
public opinion has already been determined and dancing on dead childrens body's will work against the anti's.....just my 2 1/2 cents.
decklin
Regular Member
His name was Chris Kyle.
eye95
Well-known member
And he apparently was NOT shot by any kind of brownshirt.
The willingness of some here to jump to WILD conclusions really gives the rest of us and the movement a bad name. It is hard for us to maintain credibility when wacko posts, like the one at the top of this thread, abound.
The willingness of some here to jump to WILD conclusions really gives the rest of us and the movement a bad name. It is hard for us to maintain credibility when wacko posts, like the one at the top of this thread, abound.
davidmcbeth
Banned
The gentleman is free to express his ideas and opinions ... I don't think it hurts anyone else's credibility.
And it may not be so "wacko"; only time will tell.
The OP stated facts and came to a hypothesis. You, on the other hand, offer nothing but conclusions.
Folks in NY (not NYC, one of the major crap-holes of the nation), have already shown that they are not willing to follow the recent set of laws passed in that state. This suggests that they are willing to resist; if they actually do will be seen. But if they do, then what? The OP's hypothesis gains some hard facts in support of his ideas.
I myself, would not find anyone guilty in their actions resisting these illegal laws, and this is acceptable behavior under the jury nullification legal process. And I would certainly object to the federal or other states in affecting or aiding in the enforcement of NY illegal laws; at the very least.
Once, if, the federal government starts assigning federal troops to enforce NY state laws then what would you do?
linerider69
Regular Member
We are at war the current admin. will go to extraordinary lengths to make sure they win what is for now a media, psychological,shock war.Make no mistake not standing up now will have grave consequences.But that is just my opinion.I am willing to put myself in harms way for my rights. DON'T TREAD ON ME!!!!!!!!!
Last edited:
nonameisgood
Regular Member
Short memories make each era seem so much worse that the last.
We are not in a civil war or a war for survival of our nation. Our government is not sending agents out to start a fight or kill people among us just to make it seem bad.
What we do have is a slightly different flavor and highly charged edition of politics. And talk radio and yellow journalism help convince is that we each are being attacked. It's called "delusions of persecution", and it is a very real indicator of mental illness.
--
I voted for the last Bush in his first win. But I couldn't do it the second time because he was doing all he could to make bad decisions. Like the idea of privatizing social security he pushed - a program which is intended to be the backstop, not the retirement plan for the nation. The Patriot Act. Two wars which linger still. A financial crisis of epic proportions because of things like wide open lending of money institutions didn't actually have to lend, derivatives, and mortgage backed securities that took away incentive for better lending practices.
As President Obama tried to clean up the mess, he never tried to take away our rights (until now, and possibly with Obama care), and never did much to raise taxes or fix the budget problems left to his administration. He has been too busy trying to keep the second dip of the recession from really happening. Had he cut the budget and raised taxes and brought home the troops and not followed thru in the Bush bailout commitments (yes, they were), our economy would really be in the crapper.
He's not an excellent president, but he's far from the worst. I wish people would at least recognize that he isn't some buffoon stumbling through his terms. He is the President, not Dumbo, or whatever other pejorative you care to toss his way.
We are not in a civil war or a war for survival of our nation. Our government is not sending agents out to start a fight or kill people among us just to make it seem bad.
What we do have is a slightly different flavor and highly charged edition of politics. And talk radio and yellow journalism help convince is that we each are being attacked. It's called "delusions of persecution", and it is a very real indicator of mental illness.
--
I voted for the last Bush in his first win. But I couldn't do it the second time because he was doing all he could to make bad decisions. Like the idea of privatizing social security he pushed - a program which is intended to be the backstop, not the retirement plan for the nation. The Patriot Act. Two wars which linger still. A financial crisis of epic proportions because of things like wide open lending of money institutions didn't actually have to lend, derivatives, and mortgage backed securities that took away incentive for better lending practices.
As President Obama tried to clean up the mess, he never tried to take away our rights (until now, and possibly with Obama care), and never did much to raise taxes or fix the budget problems left to his administration. He has been too busy trying to keep the second dip of the recession from really happening. Had he cut the budget and raised taxes and brought home the troops and not followed thru in the Bush bailout commitments (yes, they were), our economy would really be in the crapper.
He's not an excellent president, but he's far from the worst. I wish people would at least recognize that he isn't some buffoon stumbling through his terms. He is the President, not Dumbo, or whatever other pejorative you care to toss his way.
davidmcbeth
Banned
I think you are selling him short...or maybe give him some more time ... if interest rates sky rocket after the artificial low of today, then you may change your mind?
va_tazdad
Regular Member
LOL No, that would be Idiot Joe Biden. NObama keeps him around to look smart. I am not as worried about NObama as I am about the Fascist idiots in Congress.
In 2011 according to the federal government statistics,
195,000 deaths from doctors/malpractice
32,367 people died in car “accidents”
1694 people were murdered by knives
726 by hands or feet
496 by clubs or hammers
12,565 deaths by guns, (7,804 suicides)
323 by rifles of ANY KIND
And idiots like Bloomberg, Feinstein, Biden and Obama want to ban semi-automatic rifles???
eye95
Well-known member
No one said he is not free to do so. Please do not imply that I did.
I am also free to express my opinion of the silliness of his post--and of yours.
Finally, time has already told. We pretty well know who shot him and why this tragedy happened--unless you want to posit some kind of government brainwashing thing or some other conspiracy theory crap? If you do, I will have to ask you for that which you have to be asked repeatedly, but rarely provide: support.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
Please explain to me, how social security is constitutional in the first place. Explain to me under what constitutional authority it was exacted under.
Social(ist) security is proof that the, ones who pull the string in the, government are trying to destroy us all. Social security was a way to trick you into making yourself a slave. A slave has no rights, what keeps happening at the federal level? The government keeps denying our rights. Why is that?
Get rid of the socialist security program and that would be a big hit against a house of cards.
Jack House
Regular Member
JTHunter, consider yourself a victim of the lies and propaganda of the anti-rights lobby. You rant against the left while forgetting the right gave us the PATRIOT Act.
Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2
bellyfat
Regular Member
perhaps you would like to take up the slack for retired persons like myself. I and my wife are living on ss, along with millions of other retired persons.
bellyfat
Regular Member
amen
georg jetson
Regular Member
Yep, that makes it constitutional... /sarc
eye95
Well-known member
Unfortunately, promises were made that we can't simply back down on. Folks have paid into the system with the expectation of being able to draw on it. The system is unconstitutional and needs to be wound down.
One possible solution is for the States who want to keep it going to take over the collections and payments for their citizens. For seniors in States that don't want the program to continue, SS payments are just going to have to be worked into the budget. (Stopping "crazy checks" to lazy parents would provide a nice start.) People close to retirement will have to be grandfathered somehow. Everyone else will have to work out their retirements, the way they should have all along.
I am close to SS age myself. If the feds would just repay what I have given them, including employer contributions, I wouldn't ever ask for a dime more
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
And this makes it constitutional how?
I thought that theft, fraud, conversion, and involuntary servitude were all criminal activities. I also thought that receiving stolen goods was a criminal activity also.
So, you would have had to volunteer to donate to the Social Security program. Much like a donation to a church that helps the homeless. If it is not a voluntary contribution then it would have to be the illegal activities that I have listed. Those receiving SS benefits would be accepting stolen property.
You have failed to answer a simple question. The case shown in my tag line shows proves that it is unconstitutional. Those receiving SS are those that our congresscritters use the money of others to buy your votes. Proof of that is the fact that people receiving SS would never vote to repeal it or at least have the truth about it exposed publicly.
nonameisgood
Regular Member
I have a hard time arguing the logic of taxation to people who want to keep all their money and then demand something when their plans fail. (They lose a job, get sick, and then lose their house...) Social Security was how Congress chose to fund a system to prevent starvation of those who lost their savings to the criminals on Wall Street and Main Street. It was a knee-jerk response and probably not the best course, but you can't undo the past. The alternative is for the government to allow people to starve. Which is fine on paper, but a better plan seemed the progressive thing to do at the time.
Obviously, if we cut the government back to its true purpose, many of us would be better off, but probably not like you think. If you sell goods or services, you would immediately lose 30-50% of your business. People would be too busy saving to spend, or too busy eating to buy other things. Nothing wrong with that, just suggesting we think the economics through, rather than standing blindly on principle without a plan.
Obviously, if we cut the government back to its true purpose, many of us would be better off, but probably not like you think. If you sell goods or services, you would immediately lose 30-50% of your business. People would be too busy saving to spend, or too busy eating to buy other things. Nothing wrong with that, just suggesting we think the economics through, rather than standing blindly on principle without a plan.
davidmcbeth
Banned
Now you are being silly ... I did not imply anything against you ...
And its easy to say "that post is silly" .. its not a great statement to make.
Post facts, not simple conclusions ... otherwise it is you who is being silly.