Nobody is going to take away your guns. - Page 2

S.L.Y. · February 3, 2013, 02:21 PM

Don't believe that the government has been planning gun confiscation of American citizens. And the detainment in reeducation camps!.. well here's the link for the actual documents which are 326 pages long written by a general in the army on their plans to do exactly that it was written in 2008 reconstituted in 2010 and beginning the implementation here in Most likely the very near future!..
PS I really hope that this never happens but it's kind of hard to Ignore their own documents their own words and what I considered treason!

http://info.publicintelligence.net/U...settlement.pdf

Pilot · February 3, 2013, 02:41 PM

^^^^^^^

From my very, very quick review of the preface and intro, at first pass it seems this document is intended for "developing" nations, i.e. "third world countries" where the majority of population growth indicated will occurr. It does not seem like a document intended for domestic, U.S. military strategy, not that it couldn't be used excatly for that purpose.

Battler · February 3, 2013, 03:00 PM

Quote:

it seems this document is intended for "developing" nations, i.e. "third world countries"

Seen much of the United States lately?

**44 AMP** · February 3, 2013, 03:12 PM

Various portions of our government have, over the years, written plans or studies to either deal with, or carry out nearly every concievable situation. And a number of things that are beyond meaningful calculation of probability, as well.

Plans to deal with men from Mars. Plans to deal with the Zombie Apocalypse. Plans to impose a Nazi level authoritarian govt on a nation, (even this one), and plans to prevent the same thing.

Most of these are gathering dust in files, and they get reviewed sometimes, beacuse that is what bureaucracies do. The fact that there is a written plan or study means nothing. One has to watch what they DO, and say. That is what matters.

A brief look at history also shows that while we often have a written plan or study, somewhere, when an actual event happens, we often don't follow the plan, or sometimes even know that we have one to follow...

knowing there is a plan and what it is can be a good thing, because it may allow us to recognize things we otherwise might not. But if this nation becomes even more of a police state, it will be because of the men and women who made it happen, not because there was a plan, or a study about it. Sure, a nice roadmap (or gps today) makes it easier to find your destination, but if nobody drives us there, we don't go.

The guy who has a copy of Mein Kampf in his historical library isn't bent on world domination for the master race just because he has that book. And what if he also has a copy of the US Constitution, as well? Better see which one he follows, before judging....

shortwave · February 3, 2013, 03:53 PM

Well said 44 AMP.

After all, isn't the COTUS the same such a 'plan' , written by our forefathers that experienced life and death situations of disastrous magnitude to the people from different types of governments to insure these disasters never happened again? Kind of a 'GPS' or 'road map' to a civilized society.

DaleA · February 3, 2013, 04:00 PM

On a slightly different tack,

If I was one of the ‘nobody needs an assault weapon’ folk and heard one of my leaders say “Nobody is going to take away your guns” I would say “Why the (bleep) not???”

I would tell them that that is why I joined their group and that’s what I thought the purpose of the group was. I would say unless we take all the guns away from all the people we will not get rid of the 'gun violence'.

I’m starting to have a little sympathy for how hard it is for the anti-gun crowd to keep the fire alive in their group.

(Nah…no sympathy at all whatsoever for them. But with a great big inconsistency like that in their manifesto it MUST make some of them scratch their heads once in a while.)

dlb435 · February 3, 2013, 04:37 PM

None of the gun control proposals say anything about taking guns away from anybody. That part is true.
What is also true is this: they want to stop anyone new from getting "objectional" firearms.
That's your children and grandchildren. They want to make many firearms class three weapons. That means registration and you would need permission to sell it.
Then what is the definition of "objectional"? Will it grow to include all semi-auto pistols and rifles? Will the limit on round capacity drop to 6 rounds? Or will it drop to one round?
I'm ready to try something new. Instead of banning guns maybe we need to focus on keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people.
These last mass shootings all were done by people that should not have had firearms. The laws were already on the books. The problem is how to enforce these laws.
Any ideas on how this could be done?

Battler · February 3, 2013, 04:46 PM

Part of the gunowner concern that many can't seem to put their finger on is that while being very emphatic on getting rid of the "objectionable" guns, most of the people so inclined don't have a real definition of objectionable, or of what makes the current "objectionable" in any way distinct from a future "objectionable" (which will no doubt be presented as a loophole in the last "objectionable").

Bartholomew Roberts · February 3, 2013, 05:20 PM

What I find interesting about the "Nobody wants to take your guns" argument is how often it is used by people like Morgan, who has made it abundantly clear he does want to take your guns.

Currently, the NY state legislature proposed and rejected door-to-door confiscation. Hawaii has proposed confiscation and several other states seem to be competing for the honor of who can best infringe on a core civil right expressly enshrined in the Bill of Rights, yet they try this idiotic argument that is easily refutable by anyone who s listening.

**Tom Servo** · February 3, 2013, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Plans to deal with men from Mars.

It's a bit of a long story, but in the 90's, I got a look at a very similar plan. Like many government endeavors, it was wrong-headed and unintentionally hilarious.

"Nobody is going to take them" isn't an outright falsehood, but it is a craven evasion. Door-to-door confiscation would be inconsistent, inefficient, and possibly hazardous. A better idea is to simply pass a ban, then arrest people individually when they're found with the verboten item.

It's like saying "I'm not going to poke you with this stick" while I demand that you hand over your wallet.

NWPilgrim · February 3, 2013, 09:37 PM

If they don't plan to take my guns then why don't they just shut up about it and move along to some other subject?

Ask the vet in, what was it NJ?, that got arrested for having 30-rd mags before the law even took effect whether they plan to take our guns.

I think more and more gun owners are finally realizing that we have been too "reasonable" in the past and have compromised ourselves into a corner. Anyone noticed that 99% of our A+ rated gun rights politicians are hiding in a hole? Crickets? Yes, they are coming for our guns and our supposedly gun right protecting politicians have stepped to the side to let it happen.

It is the grassroots carrying the water in this fight for gun rights and we will remember how useless our elected officials were when we needed them.

Our motto ought to be
No more compromises, No more Quislings!
We will remember in 2014 who stood by us in in 2013!

S.L.Y. · February 4, 2013, 01:11 AM

The problem is when you see this administration and the things they have said and the things they have talked about doing over the course of the last four years under the table and whats come out in public. For instance ROM Emmanuelle said "never let a good crisis go to waste". Nancy Pelosi said on her last gun bill" If I had the votes I would've taken them all" " Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in". You see this has been part of their agenda since day one!.. However they know there is a growing gun culture in America. Knowing this they know they must turn the public on themselves to make it look like it's our plan and our idea. But look at it this way would you turn your Gun in because "They" said so or would you turn your Gun in because "You" said so. They will be taking our guns, or at least try it's just a matter of time. You see they use our own hearts, minds, and ideals against us. Because knowing that 99% of the gun culture is law-abiding constitution loving All-American individuals. It makes it difficult for them to take away our Second Amendment right the legal way because there is no legal way for its our God-given constitutional right and indowed by our Creator and set an law by our forefathers. So therefore we must oppose this onslaught and stand firm against any control over our Second Amendment no registration, no buybacks, no confiscation, & no such things thereof. And no such terms there is enough laws on the books today to handle the criminals that they create. I work in lawinforcement and I see what's happening around us it makes me sick. All I want is for my two children to grow up in the America that I grew up thinking was true, Unfortunately it looks like things are going to go down a path that may change this nation forever and I don't know if we'll ever be able to get it back.

KMAX · February 4, 2013, 09:28 AM

If they weren't up to no good then they wouldn't feel a need to control the people. They would have the support of the people thereby insuring their power. Maybe this is paranoia speaking, maybe not.

Glenn E. Meyer · February 4, 2013, 11:28 AM

Martians are coming?

Holy Crap!

My useful comment is that the statement is to split hunters and skeet shooters from other types of guns and gun owners.

The statement usually from Joe Biden is that we are not going to take your shotgun away.

Thus, he preaches the double barrel that can't miss and Pres. Obama shoots an O/U in a picture op. Interesting, the antigun news folks consider that picture as pandering. Even they see the hypocrisy in it.

pturner67 · February 4, 2013, 11:41 AM

Nazi history teaches us that arms categorization eventually leads to an all-out ban.

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty." - Adolph Hitler

Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)

- Classified guns for "sporting purposes".
- All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
- Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.
- Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
- The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.

Looks familiar, doesn't it?

If someone says "we're not going to take your guns" as part of the legislation, just reply "YET".
.
.

Alabama Shooter · February 4, 2013, 02:34 PM

Quote:

The statement usually from Joe Biden is that we are not going to take your shotgun away.

As usual he was misquoted. What he meant to say was; "We are not going to take away the shotguns of yore"

yourang? · February 4, 2013, 03:02 PM

they arent going to take them from us

when the law kicks in (god forbid)
then we are going to GIVE them to them

if we dont want to get thrown in jail

semantics......

like the guy i was arguing with about the ny ban....if we register, then
when we die, the state police will come and remove them
(non transferable to your estate or progeny)

the guy said: what do you care? you will be dead and it wont matter

this is what we are up against

Tucker 1371 · February 4, 2013, 04:29 PM

Read my sig, that's all I have to say on the topic.

Webleymkv · February 4, 2013, 05:08 PM

What's most interesting is that I've heard neither the NRA nor any other reputable 2A organization directly say that someone is "coming to take our guns." As such, I suspect that the anti's constant bleating that "nobody is going to take away your guns" is not so much a defense from an accusation as it is a Freudian slip.

Battler · February 4, 2013, 06:31 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/04/politi...html?hpt=hp_t3

Well, seems it's not your "guns" right now, it's your mags and private sales.

(Just saying, this is where we probably want to focus right now)

S.L.Y. · February 4, 2013, 11:05 PM

The main thing that we all must understand Is history, history explains it all. You see all dictators tyrants and the like start with registration then they move to small types of bands which seem on the surface acceptable by some standards. However once they have the public acclimated from there it goes to an out right band and confiscation Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all did the same thing. And when they did millions upon millions died, you turn on CNN and there commentators and their news anchors are calling all of us that own a gun racists, bigots, & killers. Including killing us by firing squads in addition to that dragging us from the bumpers of vehicles until our flesh has been peeled from our bones all this hatred. where does it go from there how much hatred must oozs onto us before something bad begins. It's just sad.

Redhawk5.5+P+ · February 5, 2013, 02:32 AM

This has been altered, and is not a real copy of the original article.

Quote:

Charles Joseph Whitmaen (June 24, 1941 – August 1, 1966) was an eangineering student and former Marine, who killed 14 people and wounded 32 others in a mass shooting rampage located in and around the Tower of the University of Texas in Austin on the afternoon of August 1, 1966. Three people were shot and killed inside the university's tower and 11 others were murdered after Whitman fired at raindom from the 27th-floor observation deck of the Main Building. Whitman was shot and killed by Austin Police Officer Houston McJoy.[1][2][3][4][5]

Prior to the shootings at the University of Texas, Whiteman had murdered both his wife and

Armchair Bronco · February 5, 2013, 02:36 AM

We need to admit that the other side is and has been MUCH more effective in dreaming up a simple mantra ("Hope & Change", "Nobody is going to take away your guns", "Demand a Plan!", etc.) and then repeating it ad nauseum with the help of a complicit media until the mantra becomes part of the national discourse.

Unfortunately, coming up with a catchy 3- or 5-word slogan is hard. If it were easy, our side would have a catchy 3- or 5-word slogan by now.

Double J · February 5, 2013, 10:37 AM

Two things we hear a lot are the terms "reasonable" and "gun violence". Our tax dollars are being used by the Obama regime to fund his attacks on our basic rights. If we could pull the plug on his unlimited checking account, that we pay for, then we would see something more "reasonable" in the news. "Gun violence" should be addressed as "violence" period.

2ndsojourn · February 5, 2013, 12:02 PM

"Two things we hear a lot are the terms "reasonable" and "gun violence". Our tax dollars are being used by the Obama regime to fund his attacks on our basic rights. If we could pull the plug on his unlimited checking account, that we pay for, then we would see something more "reasonable" in the news. "Gun violence" should be addressed as "violence" period. "

DJ, as long as it's disguised as a public service announcement, there ain't a lot we can do. But I'm with ya.

February 3, 2013, 02:21 PM	#26
S.L.Y. Junior Member Join Date: February 2, 2013 Posts: 5	Well here a bit of info-ammo for us all! Don't believe that the government has been planning gun confiscation of American citizens. And the detainment in reeducation camps!.. well here's the link for the actual documents which are 326 pages long written by a general in the army on their plans to do exactly that it was written in 2008 reconstituted in 2010 and beginning the implementation here in Most likely the very near future!.. PS I really hope that this never happens but it's kind of hard to Ignore their own documents their own words and what I considered treason! http://info.publicintelligence.net/U...settlement.pdf

February 3, 2013, 02:41 PM	#27
Pilot Senior Member Join Date: December 21, 2000 Posts: 4,193	^^^^^^^ From my very, very quick review of the preface and intro, at first pass it seems this document is intended for "developing" nations, i.e. "third world countries" where the majority of population growth indicated will occurr. It does not seem like a document intended for domestic, U.S. military strategy, not that it couldn't be used excatly for that purpose. __________________ Pilot

February 3, 2013, 03:12 PM	#29
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,803	Various portions of our government have, over the years, written plans or studies to either deal with, or carry out nearly every concievable situation. And a number of things that are beyond meaningful calculation of probability, as well. Plans to deal with men from Mars. Plans to deal with the Zombie Apocalypse. Plans to impose a Nazi level authoritarian govt on a nation, (even this one), and plans to prevent the same thing. Most of these are gathering dust in files, and they get reviewed sometimes, beacuse that is what bureaucracies do. The fact that there is a written plan or study means nothing. One has to watch what they DO, and say. That is what matters. A brief look at history also shows that while we often have a written plan or study, somewhere, when an actual event happens, we often don't follow the plan, or sometimes even know that we have one to follow... knowing there is a plan and what it is can be a good thing, because it may allow us to recognize things we otherwise might not. But if this nation becomes even more of a police state, it will be because of the men and women who made it happen, not because there was a plan, or a study about it. Sure, a nice roadmap (or gps today) makes it easier to find your destination, but if nobody drives us there, we don't go. The guy who has a copy of Mein Kampf in his historical library isn't bent on world domination for the master race just because he has that book. And what if he also has a copy of the US Constitution, as well? Better see which one he follows, before judging.... __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

February 3, 2013, 09:37 PM	#36
NWPilgrim Senior Member Join Date: September 29, 2008 Location: Oregon Posts: 2,346	If they don't plan to take my guns then why don't they just shut up about it and move along to some other subject? Ask the vet in, what was it NJ?, that got arrested for having 30-rd mags before the law even took effect whether they plan to take our guns. I think more and more gun owners are finally realizing that we have been too "reasonable" in the past and have compromised ourselves into a corner. Anyone noticed that 99% of our A+ rated gun rights politicians are hiding in a hole? Crickets? Yes, they are coming for our guns and our supposedly gun right protecting politicians have stepped to the side to let it happen. It is the grassroots carrying the water in this fight for gun rights and we will remember how useless our elected officials were when we needed them. Our motto ought to be No more compromises, No more Quislings! We will remember in 2014 who stood by us in in 2013! __________________ "The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone. ... The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition." - James Madison

February 4, 2013, 09:28 AM	#38
KMAX Senior Member Join Date: June 20, 2011 Location: Texas Posts: 1,185	If they weren't up to no good then they wouldn't feel a need to control the people. They would have the support of the people thereby insuring their power. Maybe this is paranoia speaking, maybe not. __________________ This is my gun. There are many like her, but this one is mine. I'm not old. I'm CLASSIC!

February 3, 2013, 03:53 PM	#30
shortwave Senior Member Join Date: December 17, 2007 Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO Posts: 5,970	Well said 44 AMP. After all, isn't the COTUS the same such a 'plan' , written by our forefathers that experienced life and death situations of disastrous magnitude to the people from different types of governments to insure these disasters never happened again? Kind of a 'GPS' or 'road map' to a civilized society.

February 3, 2013, 04:00 PM	#31
DaleA Senior Member Join Date: September 12, 2002 Location: Twin Cities, MN Posts: 5,312	On a slightly different tack, If I was one of the ‘nobody needs an assault weapon’ folk and heard one of my leaders say “Nobody is going to take away your guns” I would say “Why the (bleep) not???” I would tell them that that is why I joined their group and that’s what I thought the purpose of the group was. I would say unless we take all the guns away from all the people we will not get rid of the 'gun violence'. I’m starting to have a little sympathy for how hard it is for the anti-gun crowd to keep the fire alive in their group. (Nah…no sympathy at all whatsoever for them. But with a great big inconsistency like that in their manifesto it MUST make some of them scratch their heads once in a while.)

February 3, 2013, 04:37 PM	#32
dlb435 Senior Member Join Date: January 26, 2009 Posts: 654	None of the gun control proposals say anything about taking guns away from anybody. That part is true. What is also true is this: they want to stop anyone new from getting "objectional" firearms. That's your children and grandchildren. They want to make many firearms class three weapons. That means registration and you would need permission to sell it. Then what is the definition of "objectional"? Will it grow to include all semi-auto pistols and rifles? Will the limit on round capacity drop to 6 rounds? Or will it drop to one round? I'm ready to try something new. Instead of banning guns maybe we need to focus on keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people. These last mass shootings all were done by people that should not have had firearms. The laws were already on the books. The problem is how to enforce these laws. Any ideas on how this could be done?

February 3, 2013, 04:46 PM	#33
Battler Senior Member Join Date: January 23, 2000 Posts: 1,185	Part of the gunowner concern that many can't seem to put their finger on is that while being very emphatic on getting rid of the "objectionable" guns, most of the people so inclined don't have a real definition of objectionable, or of what makes the current "objectionable" in any way distinct from a future "objectionable" (which will no doubt be presented as a loophole in the last "objectionable").

February 3, 2013, 05:20 PM	#34
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	What I find interesting about the "Nobody wants to take your guns" argument is how often it is used by people like Morgan, who has made it abundantly clear he does want to take your guns. Currently, the NY state legislature proposed and rejected door-to-door confiscation. Hawaii has proposed confiscation and several other states seem to be competing for the honor of who can best infringe on a core civil right expressly enshrined in the Bill of Rights, yet they try this idiotic argument that is easily refutable by anyone who s listening.

February 4, 2013, 01:11 AM	#37
S.L.Y. Junior Member Join Date: February 2, 2013 Posts: 5	The problem is when you see this administration and the things they have said and the things they have talked about doing over the course of the last four years under the table and whats come out in public. For instance ROM Emmanuelle said "never let a good crisis go to waste". Nancy Pelosi said on her last gun bill" If I had the votes I would've taken them all" " Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in". You see this has been part of their agenda since day one!.. However they know there is a growing gun culture in America. Knowing this they know they must turn the public on themselves to make it look like it's our plan and our idea. But look at it this way would you turn your Gun in because "They" said so or would you turn your Gun in because "You" said so. They will be taking our guns, or at least try it's just a matter of time. You see they use our own hearts, minds, and ideals against us. Because knowing that 99% of the gun culture is law-abiding constitution loving All-American individuals. It makes it difficult for them to take away our Second Amendment right the legal way because there is no legal way for its our God-given constitutional right and indowed by our Creator and set an law by our forefathers. So therefore we must oppose this onslaught and stand firm against any control over our Second Amendment no registration, no buybacks, no confiscation, & no such things thereof. And no such terms there is enough laws on the books today to handle the criminals that they create. I work in lawinforcement and I see what's happening around us it makes me sick. All I want is for my two children to grow up in the America that I grew up thinking was true, Unfortunately it looks like things are going to go down a path that may change this nation forever and I don't know if we'll ever be able to get it back.

February 4, 2013, 11:28 AM	#39
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	Martians are coming? Holy Crap! My useful comment is that the statement is to split hunters and skeet shooters from other types of guns and gun owners. The statement usually from Joe Biden is that we are not going to take your shotgun away. Thus, he preaches the double barrel that can't miss and Pres. Obama shoots an O/U in a picture op. Interesting, the antigun news folks consider that picture as pandering. Even they see the hypocrisy in it. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

February 4, 2013, 11:41 AM	#40
pturner67 Senior Member Join Date: February 26, 2006 Posts: 737	Nazi history teaches us that arms categorization eventually leads to an all-out ban. "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty." - Adolph Hitler Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English) - Classified guns for "sporting purposes". - All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check. - Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law. - Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons. - The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats. Looks familiar, doesn't it? If someone says "we're not going to take your guns" as part of the legislation, just reply "YET". . . Last edited by pturner67; February 4, 2013 at 11:49 AM.

February 4, 2013, 03:02 PM	#42
yourang? Senior Member Join Date: January 17, 2008 Location: ex upstate ny...now free Posts: 119	they arent going to take them from us when the law kicks in (god forbid) then we are going to GIVE them to them if we dont want to get thrown in jail semantics...... like the guy i was arguing with about the ny ban....if we register, then when we die, the state police will come and remove them (non transferable to your estate or progeny) the guy said: what do you care? you will be dead and it wont matter this is what we are up against __________________ Now I don't know, but I been told it's hard to run with the weight of gold. Other hand I have heard it said, it's just as hard with the weight of lead. hunter/garcia (new speedway boogie)

February 4, 2013, 04:29 PM	#43
Tucker 1371 Senior Member Join Date: December 29, 2008 Location: East TN Posts: 2,649	Read my sig, that's all I have to say on the topic. __________________ Sgt. of Marines, 5th Award Expert Rifle, 237/250 Expert Pistol, 382/400. D Co, 4th CEB, Engineers UP!! If you start a thread, be active in it. Don't leave us hanging. OEF 2011 Sangin, Afg. Molon Labe

February 4, 2013, 05:08 PM	#44
Webleymkv Senior Member Join Date: July 20, 2005 Location: Indiana Posts: 10,446	What's most interesting is that I've heard neither the NRA nor any other reputable 2A organization directly say that someone is "coming to take our guns." As such, I suspect that the anti's constant bleating that "nobody is going to take away your guns" is not so much a defense from an accusation as it is a Freudian slip.

February 4, 2013, 06:31 PM	#45
Battler Senior Member Join Date: January 23, 2000 Posts: 1,185	http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/04/politi...html?hpt=hp_t3 Well, seems it's not your "guns" right now, it's your mags and private sales. (Just saying, this is where we probably want to focus right now)

February 4, 2013, 11:05 PM	#46
S.L.Y. Junior Member Join Date: February 2, 2013 Posts: 5	The main thing that we all must understand Is history, history explains it all. You see all dictators tyrants and the like start with registration then they move to small types of bands which seem on the surface acceptable by some standards. However once they have the public acclimated from there it goes to an out right band and confiscation Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all did the same thing. And when they did millions upon millions died, you turn on CNN and there commentators and their news anchors are calling all of us that own a gun racists, bigots, & killers. Including killing us by firing squads in addition to that dragging us from the bumpers of vehicles until our flesh has been peeled from our bones all this hatred. where does it go from there how much hatred must oozs onto us before something bad begins. It's just sad.

February 5, 2013, 02:36 AM	#48
Armchair Bronco Member Join Date: October 31, 2011 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 28	We need to admit that the other side is and has been MUCH more effective in dreaming up a simple mantra ("Hope & Change", "Nobody is going to take away your guns", "Demand a Plan!", etc.) and then repeating it ad nauseum with the help of a complicit media until the mantra becomes part of the national discourse. Unfortunately, coming up with a catchy 3- or 5-word slogan is hard. If it were easy, our side would have a catchy 3- or 5-word slogan by now.

February 5, 2013, 10:37 AM	#49
Double J Senior Member Join Date: February 12, 2007 Location: So. Illinois Posts: 547	Two things we hear a lot are the terms "reasonable" and "gun violence". Our tax dollars are being used by the Obama regime to fund his attacks on our basic rights. If we could pull the plug on his unlimited checking account, that we pay for, then we would see something more "reasonable" in the news. "Gun violence" should be addressed as "violence" period.

February 5, 2013, 12:02 PM	#50
2ndsojourn Senior Member Join Date: January 15, 2013 Location: South Jersey Posts: 1,416	"Two things we hear a lot are the terms "reasonable" and "gun violence". Our tax dollars are being used by the Obama regime to fund his attacks on our basic rights. If we could pull the plug on his unlimited checking account, that we pay for, then we would see something more "reasonable" in the news. "Gun violence" should be addressed as "violence" period. " DJ, as long as it's disguised as a public service announcement, there ain't a lot we can do. But I'm with ya.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search