Guns, Guns Guns

Hmm saw this on Facebook too big to post as an image here but interesting, so the blue hats think than can come in and confiscate our firearms do they?

http://i2.wp.com/static1.squarespace.com/static/4f34530ecb12e336a9dfe29c/t/521190abe4b01a5565d7eef2/1376882861893/image001.jpg?w=678

Can't vouch for the authenticity of the document, but if true then, "Well boys the time looks to be coming to take the musket off the mantle and start shooting Damn Yankees and blue hats."



Half pouunder Blunderbuss tends to discourage gun grabbers a tad. Half a pound of rocks traveling faster than Mock 1 hitting the sternum will stop a heart even without penetration. She's mean fought in the first revolution under General General Washington

Poker

The E wrote:...According to the "Nazis did it so it must be bad" principle, those things must be evil and have to be opposed...

That's not what he was saying. Yes, the NAZI's did some things that were considered good, it was a bureaucracy as well as a dictatorship. No-one rules in a vacuum (which is why the remake of Return-of-the-Jedi was stupid, really the Emperor dies and everyone celebrates? whatever The books were better, the Empire remained, just section broke up or were taken by the Rebels...anyway). He was saying that the NAZI's taking guns away from "the people" and putting them in the hands of loyal NAZI supporters was how they seized control of the government. The NAZI's are the textbook example of how to do it, and the blueprint that the Socialists have been using all over the world, ever since. So saying "you can't use that example" is cutting out the very standard of how it's done. The only reason socialism hasn't completely taken over in America (the Communist's prime target) yet is because we-the-people have guns. In NAZI Germany did the police still have guns? uh ... Yea. Did the military still have guns? (though restricted in size by Versailles) Yea. Did either of these institutions lift a single finger to stop the NAZIs from seizing control of the government? uh...NO! What can we learn from this lesson? That the Police and the Military are completely useless in preventing the over-through of the government by corrupt internal faction of that government. That's certainly what the other socialist factions learned.

Daryl wrote:The FBI, CIA, NSA, and whatever other acronym you can conceive are looking for any potential terrorist activity.

while this is a valid point, it is not a 100 years of one but only 15, prior to 911 they were not given sufficient leeway to effect such a (hypothetical) effort.

Daryl wrote:... militia groups to overthrow a "tyrannical government"? Even if such a thing as enough militia groups to out fight the US Army/Marines and so forth existed?

This isn't about overthrowing an "established" government, or civilians with AR's fighting the Military. It's about preventing the government from falling into those hands in the first place. As pointed out, in such situations both the military and the police will likely step aside and not get involved in an internal armed uprising. In such a (hypothetical) situation there would be too much chaos with members of the government taking both sides,

Daryl wrote:...but don't use treason as an excuse.

which side {hypothetically} would be the side guilty of "treason", the side trying to preserve the legitimate government system, or the side trying to destroy it and establish their own dictatorship? Both sides would have legitimately elected (or appointed) members of the government claiming control and giving both the police and military orders to side with them. Both organizations will have leaders who have 3 choices, Side A, Side B or stand aside. Most will pick C as most people in such professions tend to shirk politics (unless someone has been pre-positioned in a place of authority to side with one side or the other, one of our real problems is that it is those [however corrupt] who do-not shirk politics that actually end up in those higher positions of authority within these organizations) even then some will follow orders and others may not (which is why such things get messy quick) It's also why we have to keep a vigil,because such tyrannical forces can take their time, put people in the right places then (whimper) its over because the military and police both followed the traitors as their own leaders were traitors. If that happens, then it won't be a bunch of "civilians" with AR's fighting the military and police. You forget where all those soldiers and police officers come from, it will be factions of the military and police (those traitors who follow the orders of the traitors who have stolen the "government authority") fighting the rest of the military and police who remain loyal to freedom and democracy and are supported by those "civilians" (most of whom are ex-police/military) to reclaim their rightful democracy.

pokermind wrote:Hmm saw this on Facebook too big to post as an image here but interesting, so the blue hats think than can comein and confiscate our firearms do they?

No, they don't. You, sir, have been victim of a hoax playing on long-running conspiracy theories.

Snopes has the full rundown, but the highlights are:
* UNODA is actually real, but its remit is mostly strategic disarmament, not chickenshit personal firearms
* There is no CWCSG within UNODA
* The bar code and QR code (which are used to uniquely identify official UN documents) are copied from a different, utterly harmless document (Specifically, a document dated September 5th, 2012, outlining an agenda for UNODA)

Can't vouch for the autenticity of the document but if true then, "Well boys the time looks to be coming to take the musket off the mantle and start shooting Damn Yankees and blue hats."

It took me 2 seconds to figure out that this was a hoax. Why did you accept it as notionally true without checking?

MAD-4A wrote:He was saying that the NAZI's taking guns away from "the people" and putting them in the hands of loyal NAZI supporters was how they seized control of the government. The NAZI's are the textbook example of how to do it, and the blueprint that the Socialists have been using all over the world, ever since.

This is so very wrong, it's painful. Gun control had nothing to do with the Nazi takeover. Their initial push to power happened very democratically, with an incredibly well executed political campaign focussed on making Hitler present all throughout Germany (Hitler was the first german politician to really use contemporary transport and communication tech effectively).

(And no, that's not what smr was saying at all. His entire point was that "living constitution" is something the Nazis did [although they really, definitely didn't], therefore it must be bad.)

So saying "you can't use that example" is cutting out the very standard of how it's done. The only reason socialism hasn't completely taken over in America (the Communist's prime target) yet is because we-the-people have guns. In NAZI Germany did the police still have guns? uh ... Yea. Did the military still have guns? (though restricted in size by Versailles) Yea. Did either of these institutions lift a single finger to stop the NAZIs from seizing control of the government? uh...NO! What can we learn from this lesson? That the Police and the Military are completely useless in preventing the over-through of the government by corrupt internal faction of that government. That's certainly what the other socialist factions learned.

You are arguing the realities of the Nazi Machtergreifung with an actual german who has spent decades educating himself on the mechanisms the Nazis actually used. The Nazis weren't seen as a hostile force, on the contrary: Just like the Tea Party people and Trumpists you guys are dealing with, they had a lot of support from the people. Do not fool yourself into thinking that there was some organized resistance against them, there really wasn't; The closest you could come to it were the communists, and they weren't exactly popular at the time. Gun ownership played exactly no role in it. The modified gun control laws only came into effect after the NSDAP was securely in power.

But do go on. Keep ignoring the pesky details. I will remain here, patiently pointing out that you should probably get your head out of that stack of NRA propaganda and go look at real history books once in a while.

PeterZ wrote:They (The Founders) did recognize that the power to persuade peacefully and the power to resist physical coercion are essential elements to securing liberty...

well said.

PeterZ wrote:Our Constitution does allow the USE of guns to be legislated and restricted. They are so restricted. Gun owners who abuse their rights can lose those rights. As with any tool, guns can be abused. Yet this tool is meant to kill.

Just as people who abuse other rights can lose their right to "liberty/freedom" (jail), right to "property" (seizure/fines) {side-note regarding slavery - abuse of this "right to property" denying others right to "liberty/freedom"}, right to "life" (execution). All "rights" cannot be "taken" from you but you can forfeit one or more of your rights by steeling one or more rights from someone else. That's how the system works. like convicted felons, have their "right to keep and bare arms" forfeited by steeling rights (life, property etc...) for others.

MAD-4A wrote:

PeterZ wrote:They (The Founders) did recognize that the power to persuade peacefully and the power to resist physical coercion are essential elements to securing liberty...

well said.

PeterZ wrote:Our Constitution does allow the USE of guns to be legislated and restricted. They are so restricted. Gun owners who abuse their rights can lose those rights. As with any tool, guns can be abused. Yet this tool is meant to kill.

Just as people who abuse other rights can lose their right to "liberty/freedom" (jail), right to "property" (seizure/fines) {side-note regarding slavery - abuse of this "right to property" denying others right to "liberty/freedom"}, right to "life" (execution). All "rights" cannot be "taken" from you but you can forfeit one or more of your rights by steeling one or more rights from someone else. That's how the system works. like convicted felons, have their "right to keep and bare arms" forfeited by steeling rights (life, property etc...) for others.

Now we are making Fifth Amendment arguments. Yes, those rights may be taken away with due process but not without due process.

Anyway... the law says that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", therefore ANY bills proposed, to repeal the 2nd amendment would ultimately (and unquestionably) be for the sole purpose of infringing on the "right of the People to keep and bear arms" and is therefore unconstitutional - so no - you cannot legally post a bill to revoke the 2nd amendment. Such a bill, by it's very nature, would in-and-of-itself be a violation of the 2nd amendment and illegal. Such a person posting a bill should be prosecuted for treason against the constitution.
It's a catch-22, like the 420 act, you can grow and sell cannabis in America, as long as you have a permit, but to get the permit you must have a certain amount of it all-ready. to have that much of it would constitute being a "dealer" and without a permit that's a felony, arrest!
Regardless of what "systems" are in-place, to repeal the 2nd Amendment first requires violating the 2nd Amendment.

MAD-4A wrote:Anyway... the law says that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", therefore ANY bills proposed, to repeal the 2nd amendment would ultimately (and unquestionably) be for the sole purpose of infringing on the "right of the People to keep and bear arms" and is therefore unconstitutional - so no - you cannot legally post a bill to revoke the 2nd amendment. Such a bill, by it's very nature, would in-and-of-itself be a violation of the 2nd amendment and illegal. Such a person posting a bill should be prosecuted for treason against the constitution.
It's a catch-22, like the 420 act, you can grow and sell cannabis in America, as long as you have a permit, but to get the permit you must have a certain amount of it all-ready. to have that much of it would constitute being a "dealer" and without a permit that's a felony, arrest!
Regardless of what "systems" are in-place, to repeal the 2nd Amendment first requires violating the 2nd Amendment.

Just as the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment, a new amendment can repeal the Second. That is not illegal in any way. Stupid, but not illegal.

pokermind wrote:
Can't vouch for the authenticity of the document...

And this is how this stuff spreads.

You know you don't know if this is true.... and that leaves you with two options.

1. Do a little work and find out.
2. Just spread it around!

Far too many people choose option 2.

PeterZ wrote:Just as the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment, a new amendment can repeal the Second. That is not illegal in any way. Stupid, but not illegal.

No. The 18th Amendment did not say "no law will be passed allowing the purchase and sail of alcohol" therefore the law did not prohibit it's own repeal. The 2nd amendment is specific to "the people to keep and bare arms" and specifically prohibits laws restricting such. you cannot argue that it is legal to pass a law that a previous law states specifically you cannot pass. and since the 2nd amendment states that, specifically, and only deals with this aspect then any law specifically repealing it is illegal only a general law repealing the entire Bill-of-Rights (and therefore not specifically targeted at gun ownership) can be legally passed.

MAD-4A wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Just as the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment, a new amendment can repeal the Second. That is not illegal in any way. Stupid, but not illegal.

No. The 18th Amendment did not say "no law will be passed allowing the purchase and sail of alcohol" therefore the law did not prohibit it's own repeal.

No law can prohibit it's own repeal.

The end.