Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
Nelson_Muntz wrote:
Nelson_Muntz wrote:
Wow. That's paranoid. Probably true, but paranoid.
-
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.
CLINTON WANTS A GUN SUMMIT. NY Daily News
- Thread starter Doug Huffman
- Start date
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
The fact that she is saying there is anissue that needs solved is all I need to hear.
Its the gun-grabbers who are creating the issue.
She necessarily validates their side of the argument if she says there is an issue that needs to be addressed. No matter how smoothly she phrases it, no matter how much high-road spin she puts on it,she is validating the gun-grabbers.
The fact that she is saying there is anissue that needs solved is all I need to hear.
Its the gun-grabbers who are creating the issue.
She necessarily validates their side of the argument if she says there is an issue that needs to be addressed. No matter how smoothly she phrases it, no matter how much high-road spin she puts on it,she is validating the gun-grabbers.
longwatch
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
imported post
Tomahawk wrote:
:celebrate
Tomahawk wrote:
In my opinion its a lot easier and a more effective way to keep your guns is by writing letters, calling your elected officials, and recruiting people, than by digging holes. Less blisters too.Nelson_Muntz wrote:Wow. That's paranoid. Probably true, but paranoid.
:celebrate
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
longwatch wrote:
longwatch wrote:
I knew the real reason would come out sooner or later.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
longwatch wrote:
Right!
Now, Tomahawk, being the bright fellow that he is, would recruit others to dig his holes, while writing letters calling his elected officials...impolite names.
I would too, butit would start a better fight if I accuse him of it first.Plus, I'm not bright enough to think of recruiting others to dig my holes.
longwatch wrote:
Right!
Now, Tomahawk, being the bright fellow that he is, would recruit others to dig his holes, while writing letters calling his elected officials...impolite names.
I would too, butit would start a better fight if I accuse him of it first.Plus, I'm not bright enough to think of recruiting others to dig my holes.
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
Citizen wrote:
Citizen wrote:
I would just bury my guns on the police chief's property. No one would ever look there.longwatch wrote:
Right!
Now, Tomahawk, being the bright fellow that he is, would recruit others to dig his holes, while writing letters calling his elected officials...impolite names.
I would too, butit would start a better fight if I accuse him of it first.Plus, I'm not bright enough to think of recruiting others to dig my holes.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Tomahawk wrote:
See. I said I wasn't as bright.
Tomahawk wrote:
See. I said I wasn't as bright.
Nelson_Muntz
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Tomahawk wrote:
Maybe, maybe not. I do know what the track record of socialists in history has been. I do not see Soros, moveon, and/or Hitlery (of the foot in the door AWB) not following the script. Letter writing and legislator calling will have failed by then. (How many times did we tell congress last summer we didn't want amnesty and they continued to reintroduce it? 6 times, before they left on another extended vacation?)
Folks here are fond of saying that they'd rather have their weapon when in a location they may not need it than to be without it in a place where it's necessary. It's called being prepared. You should also be prepared to defend your right to have one against the possibility of an illegalnationwide New Orleans style grab. Socialists have no conscience and do not care about your right. No one can be against Safety. It's for the children, y'know. :uhoh:
Tomahawk wrote:
Nelson_Muntz wrote:Wow. That's paranoid. Probably true, but paranoid.
Maybe, maybe not. I do know what the track record of socialists in history has been. I do not see Soros, moveon, and/or Hitlery (of the foot in the door AWB) not following the script. Letter writing and legislator calling will have failed by then. (How many times did we tell congress last summer we didn't want amnesty and they continued to reintroduce it? 6 times, before they left on another extended vacation?)
Folks here are fond of saying that they'd rather have their weapon when in a location they may not need it than to be without it in a place where it's necessary. It's called being prepared. You should also be prepared to defend your right to have one against the possibility of an illegalnationwide New Orleans style grab. Socialists have no conscience and do not care about your right. No one can be against Safety. It's for the children, y'know. :uhoh:
imported post
People need to stop advocating armed revolt. This is not the intention of the OCDO, all it does is make everyone on this board look like Paranoid trigger happy fools looking for a fight. Its frightening how many times i see people hinting and talking about it on this and other boards. Sure fire way to scare people away from our cuase of gun rights is by talking about possible revolutions/civil war.
Lets look at this possibility, how would we the gun owners even win? Not only would we have to face what is left of our national guard, we would have to face down over 800,000+ armed cops. I doubt any possible revolution/civil war will get that many people to join on the side of the gun owners. To many gun owners are afraid to even voice a concern, or dont care enough as long as he can keep his shot gun. Then we would have to face the inevitable return of the regular army and that would quickly crush your revolt.
We need to organize rallys. I have never seen in my lifetime any pro gun rallys of any significant size in DC. Gun banners and socialists have them, and they seem to be getting there agendas past. I think its time the NRA and the NRA wannabe whose name i forget, should step up and hold massive rallys out side washington. We as a group have not done everything we can to save our rights. Due to financial limitations i cant fly to DC, but i have written letters to my senators and such. Until we as a group get off our lazy collective asses and stage massive rallys and meetings and what not, we will not accomplish anything. So stop with all this armed insurection nonsense, were not at the point were it is needed.
Even if it were to happen, do you think it would even stand a chance anyways?
People need to stop advocating armed revolt. This is not the intention of the OCDO, all it does is make everyone on this board look like Paranoid trigger happy fools looking for a fight. Its frightening how many times i see people hinting and talking about it on this and other boards. Sure fire way to scare people away from our cuase of gun rights is by talking about possible revolutions/civil war.
Lets look at this possibility, how would we the gun owners even win? Not only would we have to face what is left of our national guard, we would have to face down over 800,000+ armed cops. I doubt any possible revolution/civil war will get that many people to join on the side of the gun owners. To many gun owners are afraid to even voice a concern, or dont care enough as long as he can keep his shot gun. Then we would have to face the inevitable return of the regular army and that would quickly crush your revolt.
We need to organize rallys. I have never seen in my lifetime any pro gun rallys of any significant size in DC. Gun banners and socialists have them, and they seem to be getting there agendas past. I think its time the NRA and the NRA wannabe whose name i forget, should step up and hold massive rallys out side washington. We as a group have not done everything we can to save our rights. Due to financial limitations i cant fly to DC, but i have written letters to my senators and such. Until we as a group get off our lazy collective asses and stage massive rallys and meetings and what not, we will not accomplish anything. So stop with all this armed insurection nonsense, were not at the point were it is needed.
Even if it were to happen, do you think it would even stand a chance anyways?
Nelson_Muntz
Campaign Veteran
imported post
If your response was directed towards me, I did not mention an armed insurrection.
Wolverines :exclaim:
If your response was directed towards me, I did not mention an armed insurrection.
Wolverines :exclaim:
imported post
Nelson_Muntz wrote:
No you didnt, you hinted at it. Just as i said in my post. Its painfully obvious what your meaning was.
AS stated, we need to get off our collective lazy asses and start doing something instead of planning war. All you people in the nra and other organizations have yet to do any meaningfull rallys, yet the gun grabbers have. Rallys may seem useless, but guess what, it gets the message accross pretty damn good. The grabbers have been staging massive rallys that gain national attention and help sway people to there side. We have yet to do anything like that, and because of this we are the only ones to blame for our continued loosing in the fight for our rights.
Nelson_Muntz wrote:
No you didnt, you hinted at it. Just as i said in my post. Its painfully obvious what your meaning was.
AS stated, we need to get off our collective lazy asses and start doing something instead of planning war. All you people in the nra and other organizations have yet to do any meaningfull rallys, yet the gun grabbers have. Rallys may seem useless, but guess what, it gets the message accross pretty damn good. The grabbers have been staging massive rallys that gain national attention and help sway people to there side. We have yet to do anything like that, and because of this we are the only ones to blame for our continued loosing in the fight for our rights.
expvideo
Regular Member
imported post
Doug Huffman wrote:
Be affraid. By "give a little" she means banning so called assault rifles, high capacity magazines, possibly semi-automatic weapons in general. Who knows, maybe even centerfire ammunition.
There is no "give a little" in "shall not be infringed".
Doug Huffman wrote:
Be affraid. By "give a little" she means banning so called assault rifles, high capacity magazines, possibly semi-automatic weapons in general. Who knows, maybe even centerfire ammunition.
There is no "give a little" in "shall not be infringed".
swillden
Regular Member
imported post
expvideo wrote:
There's lots of room for compromise and negotiation, but the starting point of "shall not be infringed" is that people can own any weapon at all, without limitation. If Clinton is willing to start the talks on that basis, I'm fine with it.
expvideo wrote:
Sure there is. I'm perfectly willing to give up my right to own nuclear weapons, nerve agents and othe weapons of mass destruction. I guess I can even compromise a little further and allow the government to maintain a monopoly on tanks and fighter aircraft and their armament. I might be convinced, with effort, to willingly give up my right to own weapons that contain high explosives.
There's lots of room for compromise and negotiation, but the starting point of "shall not be infringed" is that people can own any weapon at all, without limitation. If Clinton is willing to start the talks on that basis, I'm fine with it.
Deanimator
Regular Member
imported post
swillden wrote:
swillden wrote:
What's she give up? You haven't said.
Thundar
Regular Member
imported post
Don't trust her, don't do it. She is in the pocket of the victim disarmament lobby.
Don't trust her, don't do it. She is in the pocket of the victim disarmament lobby.
swillden
Regular Member
imported post
Deanimator wrote:
[edited to clarify]
Deanimator wrote:
Let's start with background checks and the ban on recently-manufactured fully-automatic weapons.
[edited to clarify]
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Mordis wrote:
Mordis wrote:
I don't think that "advocating" is the proper word there. Most of us, when talking about the possibiity of internal armed conflict in the US, state how much the concept scares the bejeebers out of us. The vast majority are not advocating it; we are expressing our fears that the government is going to push things to the point that it ends up igniting a situation from which there is no return that grows into such an internal conflict. We applaud Montana because they make an apparently sound legal argument for peacefully voiding their compact of statehood as a function of law, not as a function of war. I don't think any reasonable, rational United States citizen wants to see an internal war of any type, even if the concept has certain intellectual appeal. The reality is horrendous, violent and devastating for generations. Frustration expressing rhetoric among friends is not the same as advocating. And I think you would be surprised at how high the percentage of us who write letters, make phone calls and send faxes to our representatives really is.
Nelson_Muntz
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Mordis wrote:
Wow. The painfully obvious meaning of my post was to learn to plain sight cache your stash in case of a possibleunfriendly government. :banghead: Hiding my property from an unfriendly government bent on illegally seizing it is not armed insurrection. It is civil disobedience.
You can rally, write or call all you want. Once a government becomes socialist it will crush your efforts to do those things by reeducating you to the gloriousness of your new government, and failing that, will crush you.
But don't worry, I will be available to help my brothers in freeing you from your oppression. That will be armed insurrection, and it will be justified. Just don't ask to borrow my gun after we free you.
That's my last word on the subject. /mordis off
Mordis wrote:
Wow. The painfully obvious meaning of my post was to learn to plain sight cache your stash in case of a possibleunfriendly government. :banghead: Hiding my property from an unfriendly government bent on illegally seizing it is not armed insurrection. It is civil disobedience.
You can rally, write or call all you want. Once a government becomes socialist it will crush your efforts to do those things by reeducating you to the gloriousness of your new government, and failing that, will crush you.
But don't worry, I will be available to help my brothers in freeing you from your oppression. That will be armed insurrection, and it will be justified. Just don't ask to borrow my gun after we free you.
That's my last word on the subject. /mordis off
I_Hate_Illinois
Regular Member
imported post
Mordis wrote:
Mordis wrote:
There are 80 million gunowners in this country. If 1% of those 80 million decided to take up arms and fight, our 800,000 troops are gonna have a fight on there hands. I'm willing to bet that if the government tried to go door to door and take people's guns, over 50% would resist. Now you have 40 million armed people fighting your 800,000 armed troops. Even with the regular army coming into the fight, hell the whole military, you still have only 3 million versus 40 million. And how many of those soldiers would actually fight their own countrymen? Not many would be willing to fight that fight. Our soldiers are our sons and daughters, mothers and fathers. Not faceless robots. It's a battle the government cannot win and they know it. Thats why every gun control bill has a granfather clause in it. To avoid just this situation. Honestly, I don't think it will come that. I pray it doesn't. And no, I am not advocating armed revolt. And even if I was, it is my first amendment right to do so. It is also your right not to read what any of us has to say, for that matter. Mordis, you are absolutely correct in saying that we do need to stage rallies. We need to get more people into the media to show the truth to other people and counteract the bullshit that the mainstream feeds everyone. This is a battle we can and are winning.
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
I_Hate_Illinois wrote:
I'll take you up on that bet. The government did exactly that in New Orleans and there was no resistance.
True, which is why talk of resistance at this point is not particularly helpful to our cause. It may be slow progress, but logic and reason is always preferable to physical conflict.
I_Hate_Illinois wrote:
I'll take you up on that bet. The government did exactly that in New Orleans and there was no resistance.
True, which is why talk of resistance at this point is not particularly helpful to our cause. It may be slow progress, but logic and reason is always preferable to physical conflict.