16/13 ~ The War On Guns Begins.


Yes, and manufactures.

But I bought two AR's early and turned around at a 200% profit. Hell, I am thinking about selling my personal AR and buying the same model next year when prices have come back down.

I will not even tell you the insane $ I made on my Uncle Sam issued 30rd magazines......

So let the hysteria continue :D
 
In a series of Executive Orders signed today, US President Obama formally declared War on Guns.

American successes in "Wars" against things other than foreign countries have always been low.

The NRA responded with an attack on the President's children.

Did you read through the 'orders?' I'd call it the "Your Doctor is Now Your Confessor (Interrogator) and Stool Pigeon Series." I'm waiting for a similar series of orders that have the same effect on attorneys.

Meanwhile, in the senate, both Reid and Leahy have stated that they see little possibility of an "assault weapon" ban. No surprise there, both of those rascals were in the senate in 1994 and witnessed the electoral bloodbath the democrats suffered at the polls. A bloodbath that was prompted as much by the gun control act of '94 as it was Gingrich's 'Contract With America.' No point in even beginning to discuss the house.

I suspect that he feels that by taking this unilateral action now that the electorate will have forgotten the entire episode by 2014. Time will tell.

Ishmael
 
I suspect that he feels that by taking this unilateral action now that the electorate will have forgotten the entire episode by 2014. Time will tell.

Ishmael

I thought he was honest when he said:

I will put everything I've got into this, and so will Joe. But I tell you, the only way we can change is if the American people demand it. And by the way, that doesn’t just mean from certain parts of the country. We're going to need voices in those areas, in those congressional districts, where the tradition of gun ownership is strong to speak up and to say this is important. It can't just be the usual suspects. We have to examine ourselves and our hearts, and ask ourselves what is important.

This will not happen unless the American people demand it.

Unless the People speak up on this one, nothing will change.

Everyone knows this, so it would be interesting to see a debate focused on improving American life vis a vis firearms.
 
Obama knows that weapons of war should not be in the hands of Law abiding American Citizens willing to defend their constitutional rights from threats both foreign and domestic, (unless you are in the military killing third world peasant farmers who stand in the way of oil profits or in law enforcement funneling weapons to drug lords) they belong in the hands of Israeli soldiers and Kibbutz settlers who need to kill rock throwing Palestinian children or third world dictators armies and secret police who support our policies.

"weapons of war "

Tell us what weapon has not been used in a war!
 
I thought he was honest when he said:



Unless the People speak up on this one, nothing will change.

Everyone knows this, so it would be interesting to see a debate focused on improving American life vis a vis firearms.

I couldn't agree more. That isn't the 'Ghetto Organizer' way though. They don't even know how to operate in that environment. Their model is;

a) Find or create a crisis.

b) Promote the crisis.

c) Demand change.

The model is not one that is conducive to, or even tolerant of, compromise.

Ishmael
 
I couldn't agree more. That isn't the 'Ghetto Organizer' way though. They don't even know how to operate in that environment.

The model is not one that is conducive to, or even tolerant of, compromise.

Ishmael

It takes two to tango, so he bears equal responsibility in the stalemates.

Which is why it's a great move to call upon The People.

It's a recognized arrow in the Presidential quiver, one the "debaters" of the GB are not generally likely to be aware of and/or give credit for.

I think he's the underdog in this scrape, but it would be interesting to see the public truly engage....and the media truly do its job.

And flying chocolate lacating breasts of Playboy quality.
 
It takes two to tango, so he bears equal responsibility in the stalemates.

Which is why it's a great move to call upon The People.

It's a recognized arrow in the Presidential quiver, one the "debaters" of the GB are not generally likely to be aware of and/or give credit for.

I think he's the underdog in this scrape, but it would be interesting to see the public truly engage....and the media truly do its job.

And flying chocolate lacating breasts of Playboy quality.

Put your money on the last wish on your list.

Ishmael
 
And when gun crimes don't fall, like they didn't fall during the first assault weapons ban, will anyone be willing to say that these laws are worthless?
 
Hey, you never know, that whole "hope" thing allegedly springs eternal.
 
And when gun crimes don't fall, like they didn't fall during the first assault weapons ban, will anyone be willing to say that these laws are worthless?

Nope. Because the truth will have been we didn't push nearly far enough. I'm giving up my gun and I recognize those kids at Sandy Hook died so I can have a gun encase someone breaks into my house and that a few thousand more children will most likely die before I have to defend myself. That's the price we pay. Plain and simple.
 
Nope. Because the truth will have been we didn't push nearly far enough. I'm giving up my gun and I recognize those kids at Sandy Hook died so I can have a gun encase someone breaks into my house and that a few thousand more children will most likely die before I have to defend myself. That's the price we pay. Plain and simple.

Speak for yourself.

Once you surrender one essential liberty then ALL liberties are on the table. It cannot work any other way.

I'll just keep repeating myself. The state has NO obligation to protect you as an individual. Further the state, no state, has the resources to do so even if they should so desire. The nature of the state, any state, is to accumulate as much power over the populace as is possible. It is all about control, not welfare, not the best interests of the citizen. The state hates surprises, it hates situations arising that may force them to be held accountable. This jeopardizes their comfy elected positions that allow to write checks on other peoples accounts. So their reaction is to curtail freedoms in order to make the attempt to micro-manage the affairs of the populace. And their method of accumulating this power/control is by convincing the populace that the state can take better care of them then they can themselves, if only they surrender this freedom or the other to the state.

It really doesn't matter if these curtailments occur incrementally or in one fell swoop. The end result is always the same, the collapse of the state along with all that that implies.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin

Ishmael
 
Let me know where she has tried to take away all guns.

She has explicitly stated that if she had her way she would do exactly that. And she's not the only one.

Every time someone says "no one wants to ban guns" I have to wonder if this is the first time they've ever debated the issue, because every time it comes up, someone thinks the solution is to ban guns.
 
I couldn't agree more. That isn't the 'Ghetto Organizer' way though. They don't even know how to operate in that environment. Their model is;

a) Find or create a crisis.

b) Promote the crisis.

c) Demand change.

The model is not one that is conducive to, or even tolerant of, compromise.

Ishmael

Just like Reagan & GW Bush did.
 
She has explicitly stated that if she had her way she would do exactly that. And she's not the only one.

Every time someone says "no one wants to ban guns" I have to wonder if this is the first time they've ever debated the issue, because every time it comes up, someone thinks the solution is to ban guns.

But she's not actually trying to take away all the guns, right?
 
Speak for yourself.

Once you surrender one essential liberty then ALL liberties are on the table. It cannot work any other way.

I'll just keep repeating myself. The state has NO obligation to protect you as an individual. Further the state, no state, has the resources to do so even if they should so desire. The nature of the state, any state, is to accumulate as much power over the populace as is possible. It is all about control, not welfare, not the best interests of the citizen. The state hates surprises, it hates situations arising that may force them to be held accountable. This jeopardizes their comfy elected positions that allow to write checks on other peoples accounts. So their reaction is to curtail freedoms in order to make the attempt to micro-manage the affairs of the populace. And their method of accumulating this power/control is by convincing the populace that the state can take better care of them then they can themselves, if only they surrender this freedom or the other to the state.

It really doesn't matter if these curtailments occur incrementally or in one fell swoop. The end result is always the same, the collapse of the state along with all that that implies.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin

Ishmael


You've been asked in other threads and didn't respond, just what liberty exactly are you about to lose?
 
9-11 was just one of many outcomes of the cold war. I wouldn't say we've "won".
If you want to narrow the definition to the breakup of the USSR, ok.

WWII was one of the many outcomes of WWI; that doesn't mean the U.S. wasn't on the winning side of WWI.
 
I couldn't agree more. That isn't the 'Ghetto Organizer' way though. They don't even know how to operate in that environment. Their model is;

a) Find or create a crisis.

b) Promote the crisis.

c) Demand change.

The model is not one that is conducive to, or even tolerant of, compromise.

Ishmael

Of course it is. If there's one person who has to be prepared to compromise, it's a "Ghetto Organizer". Think about it.
 
Once you surrender one essential liberty then ALL liberties are on the table.

Gun-ownership is not an "essential liberty."

The state has NO obligation to protect you as an individual.

Only in the sense that it can't be sued for failing to, which is only reasonable under the circumstances. But it is in the mission statement, as it were.

It really doesn't matter if these curtailments occur incrementally or in one fell swoop. The end result is always the same, the collapse of the state along with all that that implies.

No state or society ever collapsed from gun control. The UK and Japan are remarkably stable, in fact; and free.
 
You've been asked in other threads and didn't respond, just what liberty exactly are you about to lose?

The unrestricted right to keep and bear arms, the removal of which cannot be accomplished by any party, at any time, without due process of law.

Ishmael
 
Back
Top