Gun BAN APPROVED by UN & Signed by Obama

You illiterate fuck--the word is "affect," not "effect." And you've been drinking 'way too much Kool-Aid. Nobody's going after your guns.

Yea well I have shot many types of weapons in the Army and you are an idiot. The 2nd amendment is to protect us citizens from the government. THAT is the reason for its existence. Get a clue.

You're welcome mate. Stick to your guns. You will need them. Fuck Obama and fuck the Federal Government and the traitors!!

I think people fail to realize that perhaps tptb WANT a confrontation now that they have so many nifty new toys to kill with...

so the screws are only likely to get increasingly tightened...

UN ancient word for "satan"...

:)

You are pretty accurate in your thoughts there :D
And it is true, most semi auto and full auto weapons and very powerful.

But I think that any step towards disarming the american public is a bad idea, it will go from push to shove if you know what I mean. Hitler did the same thing.

the gun is archaic next to the modern weapons... so what better way to get people to rise up and slaughtered?

they will melt resisters to the ground... like the 911 towers... dustified....

not for gun control, just not big believer it matters anymore...

what matters is Jesus Christ...

:)

Thread: John Lear is wrong about Christ (much as I like him) :)

Me and 10 of my poker buddies have banned kitchen knives. It has their approval and I signed it.

tough shit, rant on.

“All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed;
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.”

Arthur Schopenhauer


We are F!

Last Edited by Mad Hatter on 11/27/2012 07:39 AM

I hear they are going to ban popcorn next.

Guns are not the threat to public safety.

The GOVERNMENT is.

The presumption of being above the rule of law is.

Last Edited by Intergalactic Diplomat on 11/27/2012 09:19 AM

If it's true, it will hopefully mean less bullets inside less people. American views on liberty as they are though, I'm not sure if this ban is the right way to do it.

“Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command: for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787

One world government is probably inevitable.

The problem is, the way they are doing it. It already looks non representative; dictatorship of the wealthy and their henchmen over the poor and disempowered; So I say, what's the difference?

We still wont have any say; we get no vote or representation, there is no empathy or connection to the lower tiers of the population; it is a self imposed illegitimate ordainment of the banking elite to rule the world.

Every law now has a self serving corporate interest behind it; It is the delegitimization of the law; because laws made now are created by non representative bodies of government. The people have no say in the mandates of the UN; even the legislation of the US. Leaders are chosen by the elite; and in the case of the UN, we dont even get the ILLUSION of choice.


Nothing new. It could have been so much more; a real thing; a real entity with a real vision; but the appearance is that it is unilateral dictatorship for the elite. Same old tactics; same methodologies. They didnt even bother to propagandize it; didnt bother to procure mid/lower tier 'buy in'; they have isolated everyone in the general population with their agenda they think is hidden but is clear to see by the world.

Not bothering with the formalities means they wont have assimilation. Meaning, "mandates" such as this will be met with cognitive resistance and open sarcasm.

Last Edited by Intergalactic Diplomat on 11/27/2012 09:20 AM

Everyone, we need you to write your senators! Do it now. Tell them that this UN bullshit is unconstitutional.

[link to www.senate.gov]

This an easy way to let them know what you think. Please write them. If you don't tell them, they have no way to know what you think.

+ Karma to you sir

Turns out our "Marine" is a woman. That answers a lot of questions, as far as I'm concerned.

The founding fathers were very apprehensive about women voting or holding high public office. For the exact same reason our "Marine" exhibits a nauseating lack of logic.

Women vote emotionally, rather than logically.

And like all fools, this emotional wreck believes that all the people who have (in unison) rebuked her are the "problem", and not herself.

It's a classic case of not being able to ever expect an idiot to ADMIT (or even recognize) that they are, indeed, an idiot. In fact, idiots always think of themselves as "brilliant", and everybody ELSE is wrong.

Our "Marine" is a textbook example.

They are attempting to use force instead of assimilation. Many other historical examples show that when a body of government attempts to disarm the public, it is reflective of illegitimacy and bad faith; i.e.

Oda Nobanaga disarmed the public after unifying Japan by confiscating swords. His primary concern, as should be the UN's, was 'legitimacy'.

Last Edited by Intergalactic Diplomat on 11/27/2012 09:21 AM

So... According to you "logic", people should give in and cooperate with tyranny, and make themselves even MORE helpless against the Beast?

Read your bible. Jesus instructed His disciples to purchase swords. Not to protect HIM, but to protect their OWN lives.

And the old testament has many examples of where God instructed His people to forge weapons, and to go to battle, in the name of righteousness.

I, for one, would never use a weapon OFFENSIVELY. But I will damn sure defend myself, and anyone I care about. Any man who refuses to take care of His own (including their safety and future) is worse than an infidel.

You sir are a complete ass and an embarrassment to the veteran community. I want you to explain to me how my civilian M4, which is kept in my safe and has hurt exactly ZERO people is in anyway the same M4 I carried in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or the difference between a stock Remington 870 and my "tactical" one as far as lethality?

You are just like Feinstein....you look at a firearm, and based solely on its appearance, judge it without even acknowledging the differences. Many of the "assault weapons" in the 1993 AWB were in no way, shape, or form assault weapons. The douche bage politicians merely took out a gun catalog and added them to the list because they were black, or "looked menacing".

Lets not even get into the weeds on the F.A.C.T. that "assault weapons" are used in .20% (less than 1/4 of 1%) of violent crimes in America, and would be used by the same asshats regardless of the civilians ability to own one (think criminals).

You may have forgotten your oath of enlistment....but I havent, and will honor it to the day I die. If it was ok for me to carry weapons of war all over this globe for 25 years, doing the politicians bidding....then it is ok for me to have now to protect my family from tyranny.

In closing...how does Schumer's dick taste there buddy?

Black Friday Gun Sales Hit New Record High
Drudge has link...

You sir obviously are oblivious to the facts. Chicago...Number one in gun control in the States....and number one in violent crime.

My neighborhood with freer gun restrictions...nearly zero violent crime.

An armed society is a polite society.

George Bush did more for Islam than any other historical leader. He probably single handedly ushered in the dominance of the Islamic faith today... why? Open illegitimacy; open deception, clear hidden agenda's in plain site of the population.

Expect gun sales to be negatively correlated to UN mandates opposing guns. The more attempts to ban, the more people will hoard guns.

If true, then it does explain a lot. I would also point out, and this is a generalization...that her name is most likely on that board merely because she is a woman. Military has gotten really crazy the past couple years with lowering standards to make people "look" good and to be all inclusive. Bet she never had to hump that thing for 20 km with a combat load.

So glad I retired.

Jim Sinclair: Gold Will Not Be Confiscated, But Your Guns Will Be!

[link to www.silverdoctors.com]

What about the guys that actually have to do the dirty work?

Last Edited by Intergalactic Diplomat on 11/27/2012 09:22 AM

My biggest issue with this whole thing is the non-Grandfathering clause. That means they will come and try to take what you already own and bought legally. THAT'S where they are going to run into MAJOR problems. The assault weapons ban didn't come under much opposition because there was no such clause.

Of course it wont be "them"... it will be US... our people... OUR lives in harms way. Divide and conquer. Something for enforcement to think about; the direction this is going.

Last Edited by Intergalactic Diplomat on 11/27/2012 09:22 AM

Now THIS is a veteran that deserves respect, unlike the fool that he was responding to.

I assure you. If your guns were to be confiscated, your gold would be next.

and.. how many of those were government initiated?

Last Edited by Intergalactic Diplomat on 11/27/2012 09:23 AM