|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 20, 2009, 03:13 PM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: Ft.Worth, Texas
Posts: 1,522
|
As stated in another post this is the beginning of the USSA
The United Socialist States of America Quote:
Look at the power Home Land Security has and how much more power they are looking for. This is a new Nazi SS police for the USSA. All I can say is "lock and load-em heavy boys because here they come!!!"
__________________
Texas - Not just a state but an attitude! For monthly shooting events in DFW visit http://www.meetup.com/TexasGunOwner-DFW |
|
February 20, 2009, 04:14 PM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 30, 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 566
|
Quote:
|
|
February 20, 2009, 04:27 PM | #28 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 16, 2007
Posts: 257
|
Quote:
Come to think of it, MTV did have a video that showed soldiers bursting into homes and rounding up people, then to the viewer it's revealed that these are the exact scenes that happened in Germany, so... Anyway, the Nazi SS were the end result of the legal, political process in Germany. Though the orders carried out by the SS were later exposed to be unacceptable by any standard of human decency, at the time they were following orders that were legal according to German law. Legal standards and human decency are not always connected. Problem is, the people who carry out the orders always think they have the moral high ground by virtue of having the law behind them. In 1945, some of them kept spouting their tired excuses until the little stool got kicked out from under their feet. You can go to any failed dictatorship around the world, the foot soldiers of legally mandated terror never thought of themselves as terrorists, but as the "good guys". As for the word choice, much of the success of anti gunners has revolved around controlling the language. That is losing some of its power with the internet, and also I really don't think the majority of people are as stupid as the antis had hoped, but anyway... I apologize for the lengthy digression, but it seemed entirely appropriate since the Nazi SS theme came up, and IMHO it was better to offer some meaningful discussion than to act like a taboo word was said. Godwin's so-called law is out the window when a military or quasi-military force actually takes over a town and unwelcome house searches enter the picture. That has not happened yet, but if it did, it would be 100% appropriate to compare it to Nazi and Soviet tactics. Well, OK, there was Katrina, but people can't even agree on what happened. I do know I saw some disturbing videos of things that shouldn't have happened in the USA. Maybe my ancestry makes me a tad sensitive to nascent police states and the tactics used therein. I don't want to say any more about that. To steer it back on topic, the anti gun extremists are trying any and every strategy they can, and it's pretty obvious that tying gun owners to illicit "arms dealers" and the Mexican drug wars is just one of these strategies. We already know they weren't above inventing phony legal scholarship (Joyce Foundation) to advance their aims. The OP pointed out that everyone knew an import ban was coming, and we all knew it was just a question of what transparent excuse would be made this time. As Huey Long and Any .45 pointed out, it is much more likely the Mexican gangs are getting their guns from other countries, especially in Latin America. They have full auto weapons, they have grenades. These are not coming from Gander Mountain. The dedicated antis have proven once again that no tactic is beneath them. They're going to make their agenda palatable to the public any way it takes. I'm waiting for them to get a "spokesperson" who announces that "now, loud-mouthed gun owners will finally shut up". The parallel might even go unnoticed. Quote:
Too bad politicians had to be invented. Most of us just want to be able to go hunting, protect our families, and shoot tin cans in the back yard.
__________________
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows." -George Orwell Last edited by 44capnball; February 20, 2009 at 04:52 PM. |
||
February 20, 2009, 04:33 PM | #29 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
|
Quote:
Repeat after me: F R E E D O M My money. I buy what I want. Would yo be upset if you couldn't buy a Toyota and were forced to buy a PINTO?
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer NRA Life Member |
|
February 20, 2009, 04:37 PM | #30 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
Since when is the ATF not enforcing the current laws? All the "semi-automatic assault weapons" (ATF's term, not mine) I see are made with a U.S. reciever and are therefore legally a U.S. made gun, were imported prior to the implementation of the ban, or have had enough features (pistol grip, bayonet lug, flash hider, etc.) removed that they no longer qualify as a "semi-automatic assault weapon". Likewise, any imported handguns that I've ever seen that don't have enough '68 GCA "points" are either U.S. made or were imported prior to 1968. True assault weapons (i.e. select-fire weapons) are already illegal to import unless they're going to specific organizations like police, military, or dealers that sell to police and military. I've not seen any post-86 machineguns for sale to individuals. Thusly it would seem that these legislators are calling for something that's already being done.
Originally posted by RedneckFur Quote:
Originally posted by BlueTrain Quote:
And yes, I'd be quite irate if I was forced to buy a Cadillac rather than a Mercedes (though I'd prefer a BMW) because Cadilllac's quality is, IMHO, inferior to that of Mercedes. |
||
February 20, 2009, 04:44 PM | #31 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
|
To some of our members here:
I have been cautioned for comments using inflamatory language, such as misspelling Democrat, bringing up facism, in respect to the avenues used to limit freedoms, etc. I believe the point was that we have both parties, and more participating, and, to not use comments that would inflame, but to engage in a rational discussion of the situation. "The United Socialist States of America" is perhaps an example of that. Pointing out that 10 or more states have issued declarations of Soverignty would perhaps be a less inflamatory manner of bringing up that this IS a major issue and concern for the people of the United States. I function in an industry that is being told how to do our job, teaching, and, that we must insure illegals will be able to read, perfectly, in some absurdly short period of time. It's called No Child Left Behind, and, it's a bunch of people in Congress writing goals without funding, telling states they must do something they cannot, and, doing it out of their authority under the Constitution. Government, centralized government, that oversteps a democracy, or republic, tends to fit under a number of names as it progresses. Being aware of the tendencies is good, and I find parallels to history a very effective way of seeing the progress towards where other nations have ended up. I would be cautious in blaming one party or the other. The bill that allowed the formation of more centralized government, The Homeland Security Act, was a joint effort, both parties voting it in, and, a Republican president signing it, IIRC. It is becoming quite clear that the elected officials we have in office, and both parties need to be reformed... |
February 20, 2009, 04:47 PM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
Socrates, I agree 100% and have long said that a third-party candidate with more than a snowball's chance in Hades would tickle me pink (where's Ross Perot when you need him).
|
February 20, 2009, 04:54 PM | #33 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
February 20, 2009, 05:36 PM | #34 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,184
|
Quote:
The level of corruption makes our most corrupt politicians look like choir boys. The cartels have so many people on the payroll that they can get what they want. The American gun culture makes an easy target for Mexico but the reality is that the criminals who want guns in Mexico can get them all over central america not to mention elsewhere in the world. And we aren't talking about nuetered firearms that are available for commercial sales in the US. What do you want the US government to do about this problem? The acts being committed by these people are highly illegal and they care little about US laws regarding the purchase and importation of firearms. I guarantee that enforcing 922r will not slow down the cartels in Mexico from getting the weapons they want. These American politicians who want this enforce don't care about what is going on in Mexico they just want to restrict gun rights and the firearms available for purchase as much as possible. |
|
February 20, 2009, 05:44 PM | #35 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I'm just going to close this for going off topic. Next time I issue infractions for every off topic post I find.
|
|
|