Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It's about CONTROL.

 

I was trying to explain (again) to a liberal minded friend of mine how much of a very real possibility / probability that the Dems are finally going to try and spring something on us and do what they can to try and disarm the public. He's definitely not the first one who has challenged me to show him any proof that nobama or any other govt. official has any plans in the works to do so. Always the same bullshit from them.... "Obama isn't after your guns man, he's been in office 4 yrs and has he come after them yet??" They can't grasp the fact that the current administration has not actually done anything yet, because if they were stupid enough to try it first term, they would not get back in for a second term. Try to tell them they have been getting all their pawns in place, and stacking the deck in their favor, in preparation to move on us once they are FINALLY done campaigning (THANK GOD).

 

So.... I had this idea to start a thread here and ask folks to post links or valid info here, in one place, where others can come and collect actual facts to share with people living in the same fantasy land as my libtard friend.

 

Now PLEASE guys this is NOT intended to be some "political debate" thread, or I would be posting it in the political section. What I'm looking to start is a living document sort of, or a list where anyone can post up any real and provable information about gun control legislation that is in the making right now. Any proposed legislation with the actual wording that can be shared would be great.

 

So what ya got?

 

Johnboy.gif

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I responded to a facebook comment earlier today claiming that Obama isn't anti-gun and that anyone who thinks hasn't done any research with this:

 

 

Well, I don't know about you, but I've done my research. Despite the President's caving in under political pressure to sign the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 which included a provision for national park concealed carry, the Obama administration has consistently supported the reinstitution of the Assault Weapons Ban, which was reaffirmed during the debates. Moreover, he brought up the idea of possibly legislating against 'cheap handguns' as he sees that they are the problem in Chicago... I guess poor people shouldn't be able to defend themselves, too, right? Furthermore, despite the BATFE's epic failure with Fast and Furious, the President still signed an executive order directing gun stores to report multiple purchases of long guns in border states... another clear violation of the Firearm Owners Protection Act. Lastly, one of Obama's Supreme Court appointees Sonia Sotomayor is on record stating that, "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right." Considering that DC vs Heller, the first Supreme Court ruling that clearly defined the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, was split 5-4 in favor, future appointees with an anti-gun agenda are going to cause a lot more problems for Americans many years after Obama has left office.

 

So, yeah, do some real research before drinking the kool-aid.

Edited by Risky
Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that one good indicator, no, not good, very good indicator of anyone's intentions is what they are on record saying they want or intend to do. Often these verbatim quotes get lost in the shuffle so a while back I put all I could find into one post. Again, you can argue, debate or put forth what you think or suspect someone will do if given the chance but IMO there's no arguing with the actual words that come out of someone's mouth and are on record. Some of these quotes are from years ago but to me this doesn't matter, hard core anti gunners rarely change or moderate their views they only appear to in the interest of gaining wider acceptance of their ideas and goals.

 

And beware the phrase "common sense" with regard to a new proposed law. It is my opinion this is a subtle tactic to gain acceptance. Most people like to believe they have common sense whether they really do or not so when they are told a plan of action is "common sense" there is subtle pressure to agree..."You do have common sense don't you?, if you do, you should agree with this".

 

When I am asked why I would oppose a "common sense" gun law I say "Because it is part of an overall strategy to do away with civilian firearm ownership greatly limiting or taking away altogether my ability to defend myself and my family, a God given right without which all other rights are meaningless".

 

Here is a link to the post;

 

http://forum.saiga-1...heir-own-words/

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's all follow the UK's fine example and ban all handguns...

 

Gun Crime Doubles In A Decade

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6438601/Gun-crime-doubles-in-a-decade.html

 

It sure is comforting to know they don't have handguns in Glasgow, Scotland!

 

Shocking Rise In Scottish Knife Crime

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/shocking-rise-in-scottish-knife-crime.15457796

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

State Department Document 7277 clearly outlines the plan to disarm the American people and merge the US military into the United Nations military force, a One World Government military.

 

Public Law 87-297 essentially states the same thing.

 

This is not "conspiracy theory" but fact....

Reply

 

This SHOULD scare the hell out of anyone but there are, but much of the general public thinks things like this are crazy conspiracy theorys. My brother in law for instance who is afraid that the conservatives are going to round up all the homosexuals and put them in prison camps, but THAT is not a crazy conspiracy theory!

Edited by misterT
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my lovely representative; http://blumenauer.ho...-ideas&Itemid=1

 

 

And here's what one can post in response to the firearms prohibitionist inevitably trying to say that there's more shootings in the US than anywhere else, when they try to imply that we're a more violent nation because of our firearms.

Note the countries with the highest intentional homicide rates tend to be the ones with the tightest gun control upon research;

http://en.wikipedia....l_homicide_rate

 

As for how to debate a firearms prohibitionist, one must keep in mind... we're often white males so we have no rights in a progressive's eyes because they say we have what they'll call "white male privilege".

Therefore we can most effectively debate them from the standpoint of empowering women to be able to defend themselves.

 

Also, don't be afraid to play the race card;

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iQPKT9teck

 

Flip the script, and paint THEM as racist for their views condoning keeping the "oppressed peoples" defenseless and at the mercy of what they see as the evil "white male power structure".

 

It also helps to frame the language in our favor.

To someone with a victim's mentality "controlling guns" sounds like the alternative is every victimizer having the means to kill them, and victims often revel in their identity as victims.

However, "prohibition" is a bad word to them as it sounds persecutory and oppressive, therefore refer to their side as "Firearms Prohibitionists"

 

Remember... Some people just don't have much common sense and only operate off of emotion...

 

Moregovernment-1-1.jpg

 

Oh yeah...

And if they say "the constitution's old so it's irrelevant" or that America's gun culture leads to "war mongering" make mention that in the Federalist Papers, it's explained that the founding fathers were expressly attempting to keep America from raising & maintaining standing armies because throughout history, tyrannical governments have always turned the standing armies on the people, hence the 2A & citizen's Militia, so if we were actually abiding by the framer's intent, there would be no foreign wars for them to be upset about.

That will help sway some to actually READ and take an actual interest in the subject because it suites their views. Once they pay attention, they'll see it makes sense. (other than section 4 of the 14th)

 

If people come at us with the argument that the national guard is the militia, that's bullshit. It was established in 1903, and is an active component of the federally commanded standing army.

 

Also, back during the revolutionary war, the citizens had CANNONS, so there goes their "you can have muskets" argument that some seasoned debaters will come at us with.

 

JPFO is an excellent source for material to debate progressives with as well.

 

Most of the time we'll be debating progressives, and THEIR views will NOT change. They know their argument is BS, but they have an agenda. Therefore they'll keep coming at us with redundant false arguments while ignoring facts & history.

It's the ignorant liberals among them that we can flip with truth.

 

I love pissing progressives off by turning the liberals among them into 2A supporters.

It drives them crazy. happy.png

 

 

ETA;

....... greatly limiting or taking away altogether my ability to defend myself and my family, a God given right without which all other rights are meaningless".

Along those lines, be watchful for what type of rights people will say you have.

Inalienable rights and Unalienable rights are as different as night and day, and many are either confused, or intentionally use the wrong word.

 

In separate drafts of the constitution, the words differed.

The final draft uses the word Unalienable, meaning inherent, or God given, rights that you have which cannot justly be taken from you.

 

Inalienable rights can be given, bought, sold, or taken by government.

Those favoring shitcanning our constitution will swap the word Inalienable in there to attempt to deceive the people, however the final draft which was ratified and made law uses the word Unalienable.

There's people hell-bent on taking our rights, and they're trying everything they can to obfuscate the discussion to take them by hook or by crook.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Pauly, the first step to confiscation is full registration. We learned that from the Nazis.

 

 

And for the treaty, this is what stuck out to me the most. Under Article 14 of the UN Arms Trade Treaty, if ratified, provides for foreign “assistance to implement the Treaty,” and mandates that nations who can provide requested support must do so if requested by member nations. That includes legal, financial, technical as well as “material” assistance to enforce a treaty that declares "recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activites" to be the "exclusively" recognized reasons for lawful private ownership, and which further recognizes the “inherent rights” of the State (i.e. nations under the treaty) to self-defense, but makes no mention of the rights of the individual.

 

The final draft of the most recent treaty can be seen here for those who havent seen it.

 

http://www.thegunmag...ext-26-July.pdf

 

Article 11 is interesting too. Gotta love how they word shit.

 

Hope this helps Cobra.

Edited by Captain Hero
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to blow a Liberal's mind? Have them get out their cell phone and pretend to dial 911. Once they hit the first digit, "BANG!!! You're dead." 9 times out of 10, they jump and drop the phone.

 

I can see the point to doing this, but I think it may just piss them off enough that they call the cops on you and say you threatened them. Well, I could see one of them around here doing that

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks keep it coming guys. You would not BELIEVE the shitstorm I was in today with libtards on FB. ( Definition IMO of a libtard: One who is so convinced I am an uncontrollable and so irreversibly conservative IDIOT in THEIR minds, that they get even more offended when I refer to their kind as IDIOTS. Yes it is a stupid continuous cirlce and not productive at all. I know this... Still I cannot help but bring to their attention just how ridiculous their crazed uninformed opinions actually are. OMG

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck it I'm here among like minded friends and patriots. I'll just share exactly what I said to these people. I.D.G.A.F. anymore.... I am THAT PISSED OFF.

I started this thread to try and gather articulate info to share there because dammit I do get too pissed to hold to the point sometimes. (yeah I ain't perfect...are you?) I was also drinking off my extreme disappointment at the outcome of the so called election, when I decided to go off (another very unwise and admittedly irresponsible thing to do... yes I know... sorry ok? my fingers did the walking any damn way just like they are doing now.... emotions have no place in cyberspace when amped up on things you are willing to die for.... yes I know this... grrrrrr whatever.) So I copied and pasted that awesome collection of quotes (thank you Squishy) which was the very thing I wanted...SHOCK FACTOR.... and OMG you shoulda seen the shit that followed (some here did...).

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.guncite.com/ is a fairly straightforward site full of articles pertaining to 2A that are well researched and cited... hence, the name of the site.

 

Important to note that some of the quotes from Squishy's thread, according to this site, are incorrectly attributed or just plain wrong. Its important for our side to get it right, always.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Important to note that some of the quotes from Squishy's thread, according to this site, are incorrectly attributed or just plain wrong. Its important for our side to get it right, always.

 

I'm not surprised at this as I did not spend the time needed to fully vet each quote, if I found it a worthy sentiment I included it. But as you say it is of utmost importance to get the facts right as claiming a statement to be a lie and being able to demonstrate that it is is an effective counter tactic. I went to the site Risky linked to and only saw a link for incorrect or wrong attribution for founder's quotes. Is there another for anything else I posted?

 

As I've said it is my firm intention to create a place for Pro Gun Rights information and commentary so if anyone can point out anything I've posted that is incorrect or needs editing do me a favor and point it out. Also, if anyone would like to be involved with this effort in any way PM me. I can use information, research and if you like to write commentary that too.

 

And Cobra, buck up son, you're a Tar Heel, I know you know what that means post-41803-0-27427400-1352466966.gif If you ever need back-up you know where I am.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

ETA;

....... greatly limiting or taking away altogether my ability to defend myself and my family, a God given right without which all other rights are meaningless".

Along those lines, be watchful for what type of rights people will say you have.

Inalienable rights and Unalienable rights are as different as night and day, and many are either confused, or intentionally use the wrong word.

 

Thanks for this Pauly. I thought the two words were synonymous but I see while they are similar they are not the same. From the research I've done if I understand correctly an inalienable right cannot be taken away but it can be given up voluntarily. Unalienable rights cannot. This is an important distinction. Thanks again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Important to note that some of the quotes from Squishy's thread, according to this site, are incorrectly attributed or just plain wrong. Its important for our side to get it right, always.

 

I'm not surprised at this as I did not spend the time needed to fully vet each quote, if I found it a worthy sentiment I included it. But as you say it is of utmost importance to get the facts right as claiming a statement to be a lie and being able to demonstrate that it is is an effective counter tactic. I went to the site Risky linked to and only saw a link for incorrect or wrong attribution for founder's quotes. Is there another for anything else I posted?

 

As I've said it is my firm intention to create a place for Pro Gun Rights information and commentary so if anyone can point out anything I've posted that is incorrect or needs editing do me a favor and point it out. Also, if anyone would like to be involved with this effort in any way PM me. I can use information, research and if you like to write commentary that too.

 

And Cobra, buck up son, you're a Tar Heel, I know you know what that means post-41803-0-27427400-1352466966.gif If you ever need back-up you know where I am.

 

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcbogus.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Risky, you said "...some of the quotes from Squishy's thread, according to this site, are incorrectly attributed or just plain wrong."

 

This would tend to cast doubt on all of the quotes as no one would know which quotes are part of the "some" you mention. Here are the facts. Out of the 60 quotes I posted only two on this site you point to are among them. As for the Janet Reno quote there are signed affidavits asserting she did make these comments. Of course Reno and a Justice Department spokesman deny she made the comments. So at best this is a "he said, she said" situation although I would like to see the final draft of the affidavit signed by Fred Diamond but your source does not include this.

 

In the other quote of Sarah Brady there are 4 lines in the quote I posted, your source only mentions one line, the last line as not being true. If I post or publish this list of quotes again I will remove that line.

 

I have no quotes of Hitler or the urban myth about Jim Brady in what I posted.

 

So "some" turns out to be very small percentage but even a small percentage is too much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't my intention to cast doubt... However, you should probably do a quick search on each quote you post to try to ensure their validity. By posting something, you're making the assertion. It should be up to you to make sure they're factual, not the reader. A healthy dose of of skepticism is good for both sides of any argument.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't my intention to cast doubt... However, you should probably do a quick search on each quote you post to try to ensure their validity. By posting something, you're making the assertion. It should be up to you to make sure they're factual, not the reader. A healthy dose of of skepticism is good for both sides of any argument.

 

Your assumption that I did not do any research into these quotes is interesting. In fact I looked at hundreds of quotes from multiple sources and weeded out many with no attribution and some which I found to either be obviously false like the Hitler quote or suspect enough not to include. It took no small amount of time to compile the list. Even with this shoddy research I'm still only seeing 1/4 of one quote out of 60 that I will concede is most likely incorrect. The other is arguable. Without access to a service like Lexis Nexis or other high priced proprietary publication databases it is impossible to "fully vet" a quote as I say above in post #20. Back issues of publications can be ordered but again, this is where excessive time figures into it.

 

I don't think .25% of one post out of 60 is bad using the net alone but in retrospect it's probably best to do nothing, say nothing and not run the risk of misleading anyone. This would probably best serve "the cause".

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to cop an attitude because you feel I've insulted you let's just skip the sarcastic commentary and cut to the 'fuck you's.

 

I questioned how much research you did because most of them were just copied from here: http://thefiringline.com/library/quotes/antifreedom.xml

 

Furthermore, you're the one that said "I'm not surprised at this as I did not spend the time needed to fully vet each quote, if I found it a worthy sentiment I included it." That right there implies that if you saw something that you liked, you included it and alludes to no further research on your part.

 

It wasn't my intention to derail the thread... just keep us honest. I was trying to be helpful. If you want to get pissy, I'll just stop.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Call it pissy if you wish, you decided to go to the "fuck yous". The fact is I found these quotes on multiple sites, I didn't just copy a list from a single site, but that's just my word and it doesn't count for much. What I mean and meant by "fully vet" was in reference to each individual quote and to me, fully vet means to see the quote or information first hand at the source not just an attribution. I did not do this. What I did do was search multiple sites and compile a list, remove duplicates and quotes with little or no attribution and come up with something I felt would be of value.

 

In post #20 I tried to take a conciliatory rather than a combative attitude after you said "Important to note that some of the quotes from Squishy's thread, according to this site, are incorrectly attributed or just plain wrong." But you didn't mean to cast doubt....

 

Then I see that according to your Usenet sourced information 1 line in one quote in 60 is wrong. This was worth your trouble? But even after I find that a mountain is being made out of a molehill I still agree that even the smallest inaccuracy is unacceptable.

 

But you won't let it go and decide to introduce profanity into it and call me pissy.....who was being pissy from the beginning?

 

I don't want hard feelings over this but if you wish to call me out on something be specific and hopefully make it something substantive. I will say that if you wish to hold the left and the gun control crowd to the same standard of "truth" you've tried to hold me to you'll have your work cut out for you but you should be effective which is what the Gun Rights movement needs.

 

The enemy is out there, not here. If you'd care to take it to PMs that's fine, we can let this thread get back to what the OP intended.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to say publicly that Risky and I are OK. I think it's safe to say that we agree there are much bigger fish to fry and in the days, weeks and months ahead our passions need to be directed toward the real threat and not each other. For my part I promise to do the best I can to provide information that is effective in countering the half-truths and outright lies put forth by those who seek to disarm us all and threaten our safety and the safety of our families.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×
×
  • Create New...