-
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.
The Horror of Gun Control
- Thread starter Tomahawk
- Start date
SouthernBoy
Regular Member
imported post
Well let's see. On the one hand, we have people, fellow citizens, who for whatever reason just do not like firearms. And no matter how much we may try to convince them otherwise, they are set in their ways and we are not going to change this. But with these people, it is not enough that they don't like them and don't want to own them.. they don't want anyone else to own them either.
Then there are the "authorities", government if you will. Their anti-gun stances have less to do with not liking guns and quite a bit more to do with controlling the "masses". And how do you do this? One way is to diminish gun ownership through various means until you have reached the point of banning them outright.
The first paragraph speaks of the pawns, the useful idiots, which are tools for those mentioned in the second paragraph and it is those in the second paragraph whose goals, while ultimately the same as the ones in the first, are more sinister and dangerous. We need to watch both and remain vigilant, but it is those in the second paragraph who are in positions to affect the loss of our liberties.
Well let's see. On the one hand, we have people, fellow citizens, who for whatever reason just do not like firearms. And no matter how much we may try to convince them otherwise, they are set in their ways and we are not going to change this. But with these people, it is not enough that they don't like them and don't want to own them.. they don't want anyone else to own them either.
Then there are the "authorities", government if you will. Their anti-gun stances have less to do with not liking guns and quite a bit more to do with controlling the "masses". And how do you do this? One way is to diminish gun ownership through various means until you have reached the point of banning them outright.
The first paragraph speaks of the pawns, the useful idiots, which are tools for those mentioned in the second paragraph and it is those in the second paragraph whose goals, while ultimately the same as the ones in the first, are more sinister and dangerous. We need to watch both and remain vigilant, but it is those in the second paragraph who are in positions to affect the loss of our liberties.
Milbars
Regular Member
imported post
Obviously it didn't take the Israeli's long. No matter what your feelings about them as a people or as a religion, you have to admire their spirit and their resolve. It's almost like it's a holdover from our isolationism feelings we had back before WW1 and WW2. Put your head in the sand and it will all go away...
Obviously it didn't take the Israeli's long. No matter what your feelings about them as a people or as a religion, you have to admire their spirit and their resolve. It's almost like it's a holdover from our isolationism feelings we had back before WW1 and WW2. Put your head in the sand and it will all go away...
Decoligny
Regular Member
imported post
SouthernBoy wrote:
This is pretty much the definition of a radical left-winger.
A Conservative decides he doesn't like guns, so he doesn't buy a gun. A radical left-winger decides he doesn't like guns, so he tries to outlaw guns.
A Conservative decides to become a vegetarian, he gives up eating meat. A radical left-winger decides to become a vegetarian, so he tries to outlaw meat.
A Conservative decides to lose some weight, he stops eating fried food. A radical left-winger decides to lose some weight, so he tries to outlaw fried food.
A Conservative decides that smoking is bad, he doesn't smoke. A radical left-winger decides that smoking is bad, he tries to outlaw smoking.
A Conservative wants to live his life free fromthe fetters of tyranny. Left-wing radicals want to force you to conform to their point of view (tyranny) and there is no room for opposition,they try tocrush itat any expense.
SouthernBoy wrote:
This is pretty much the definition of a radical left-winger.
A Conservative decides he doesn't like guns, so he doesn't buy a gun. A radical left-winger decides he doesn't like guns, so he tries to outlaw guns.
A Conservative decides to become a vegetarian, he gives up eating meat. A radical left-winger decides to become a vegetarian, so he tries to outlaw meat.
A Conservative decides to lose some weight, he stops eating fried food. A radical left-winger decides to lose some weight, so he tries to outlaw fried food.
A Conservative decides that smoking is bad, he doesn't smoke. A radical left-winger decides that smoking is bad, he tries to outlaw smoking.
A Conservative wants to live his life free fromthe fetters of tyranny. Left-wing radicals want to force you to conform to their point of view (tyranny) and there is no room for opposition,they try tocrush itat any expense.
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
My version:
Add to that a few about flag-waving, making kids pledge allegiance, and building a police state to round it off...
I decided after watching Bush destroy my country while being cheered on by "conservatives", some of whom questioned my loyalty to that country,that I have no further use for conservatism, at least not the type that prevails today.
Goldwater-style conservativism? We'll talk.
For me it's not about conservative vs. liberal. It's about free man vs. the statist. And statist includes both right and left.
My version:
Add to that a few about flag-waving, making kids pledge allegiance, and building a police state to round it off...
I decided after watching Bush destroy my country while being cheered on by "conservatives", some of whom questioned my loyalty to that country,that I have no further use for conservatism, at least not the type that prevails today.
Goldwater-style conservativism? We'll talk.
For me it's not about conservative vs. liberal. It's about free man vs. the statist. And statist includes both right and left.
MetalChris
Regular Member
imported post
^^ +1
^^ +1
riverrat10k
Regular Member
imported post
For me it's not about conservative vs. liberal. It's about free man vs. the statist. And statist includes both right and left.
Last edited on Mon Oct 19th, 2009 08:53 pm by Tomahawk
Well said, T-hawk. How do we form a third party that we would want to belong to?
For me it's not about conservative vs. liberal. It's about free man vs. the statist. And statist includes both right and left.
Last edited on Mon Oct 19th, 2009 08:53 pm by Tomahawk
Well said, T-hawk. How do we form a third party that we would want to belong to?
6L6GC
Regular Member
imported post
I pretty much agree with you here. I am a very loyal U. S. Citizen but that does not mean that I automatically support what everadministration that happens to be in the oval office at a given time.
What used to annoy me so much is that a lot of big-government types who had convinced themselves that theywere "conservatives" and therefore confused support of Bush with loyality to the country accused all who didn't support Mr. Bush as being non-patriotic.
When I was repulsed by the Bush administration's embrace of the constitution trashing "Patriot Act" I was denounced as a liberal or leftist or whatever political insult was the whipping boy of the day.
Yep, I'd be glad to have B. Goldwater or even Regan. But alas, no body like that around today except maybe Ron Paul. maybe.
I pretty much agree with you here. I am a very loyal U. S. Citizen but that does not mean that I automatically support what everadministration that happens to be in the oval office at a given time.
What used to annoy me so much is that a lot of big-government types who had convinced themselves that theywere "conservatives" and therefore confused support of Bush with loyality to the country accused all who didn't support Mr. Bush as being non-patriotic.
When I was repulsed by the Bush administration's embrace of the constitution trashing "Patriot Act" I was denounced as a liberal or leftist or whatever political insult was the whipping boy of the day.
Yep, I'd be glad to have B. Goldwater or even Regan. But alas, no body like that around today except maybe Ron Paul. maybe.
6L6GC
Regular Member
imported post
edited to remove double post. sorry
edited to remove double post. sorry
KBCraig
Regular Member
imported post
6L6GC wrote:
Rand Paul is doing a good job of following in his father's footsteps, in his current run for the GOP U.S. Senate slot from Kentucky.
6L6GC wrote:
Rand Paul is doing a good job of following in his father's footsteps, in his current run for the GOP U.S. Senate slot from Kentucky.