Russia tells America - don't give up your guns | |
milehighmike User ID: 339344 United States 12/30/2012 01:23 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Pretty sad day when Russia recognizes something half the people in this country are oblivious to.... "Successful people are always looking for opportunities to help others. Unsuccessful people are always asking, 'What's in it for me?'" — Brian Tracy: Personal and business training author, speaker, and consultant "We are all, right now, living the life we choose." -- Peter McWilliams, Author "The bad news is time flies. The good news is you're the pilot." -- Michael Altshuler |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 31146013 United Kingdom 12/30/2012 01:23 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I haven't heard a single credible source say that our government was going to ban ALL guns. It's about banning assault rifles. What's so wrong with that? Quoting: Paid Shill It's the camel's nose under the tent. Anyway, hardly anyone in the USA legally owns an "Assault Rifle". Do you even know what the term means? well, in yer case it would mean any of the weapons that you own. I'm a British subject. I don't own any firearms. Though I could, quite legally, own shotguns and rifles. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 31146013 United Kingdom 12/30/2012 01:24 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The Amerikan fascist empire will attack Russia next. Its not in Russia's interest to see the patriotic militia opposing the Obama dictatorship disarmed. Quoting: Mr. Toppit Pragmatic lol no, we are not going to engage russia As is the way of things, Russia might well turn out to be an ally! |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 8668963 United States 12/30/2012 01:24 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | A chilling snippet from the article: Quoting: Ralph--a house dog Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear. ------ The above sentiments were no doubt based on thoughts extracted from the rotten skulls of all the hypocrites like Feinstein, Shumer, Boxer etc who have firearms themselves plus a herd of armed guards. ^^^This^^^ Elitist apparatchik will continue to live ever more luxurious lifestyles as they trample on liberty and freedom. The realization of this Marxist coup is STILL not evident to most. |
IssueX User ID: 14348632 United States 12/30/2012 01:26 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I haven't heard a single credible source say that our government was going to ban ALL guns. It's about banning assault rifles. What's so wrong with that? Quoting: Paid Shill first of all, they are defining assault as anything capable of firing more than 10 rounds, and hundreds of hand guns are on their wish list but you know that and first they come for the assault weapons, then the simpler hand guns, and as in Britain, they eventually come even for the hunting rifles "reasonable" people ask "what's wrong with that?" and "reasonable" people will refuse to see there is an agenda but after rights are relinquished, they are almost impossible to get back Just ask the British |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 31146013 United Kingdom 12/30/2012 01:26 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I haven't heard a single credible source say that our government was going to ban ALL guns. It's about banning assault rifles. What's so wrong with that? Quoting: Paid Shill It's unConstitutional and an obvious prelude to genocide. Other than that, nothing. It's not unconstitutional to place certain limits to rights we are guaranteed in the constitution. While we have freedom of speech, it is within certain restrictions. While we are free from search and seizure by the Fourth Amendment, that too is subject to certain constitutional exceptions. Why wouldn't the Second Amendment be any different? "shall not be infringed" seems pretty absolute, to me at least. The Founders knew what they were doing. |
davvi User ID: 3677166 United States 12/30/2012 01:27 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31146013 It's the camel's nose under the tent. Anyway, hardly anyone in the USA legally owns an "Assault Rifle". Do you even know what the term means? I keep asking the gun control fans, "what is an assault rifle" to date none can answer. I'm sorry, I mistyped. I mean, it's about banning assault-type weapons, such as automatic and semi-automatic rifles. And once they're banned, and a shooting occurs with a rifle or pistol, a ban will follow after that. There's a reason why Obama pretends to cry over the deaths of school children in the US while at the same time has no trouble bombing any one else in other countries where it won't effect his reputation. he never cries over the dead in chicago, never. the number has reached 500 this year alone and not one obama tear. one would think he only cares about shootings when there is a political benefit to his agenda? that couldn't be could it? |
Hardwired User ID: 30756078 United States 12/30/2012 01:29 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I haven't heard a single credible source say that our government was going to ban ALL guns. It's about banning assault rifles. What's so wrong with that? Quoting: Paid Shill It's the camel's nose under the tent. Anyway, hardly anyone in the USA legally owns an "Assault Rifle". Do you even know what the term means? I keep asking the gun control fans, "what is an assault rifle" to date none can answer. A rifle intended for assault purposes, I would presume. So...a rifle in the hands of a criminal |
Paid Shill User ID: 31002499 United States 12/30/2012 01:32 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I haven't heard a single credible source say that our government was going to ban ALL guns. It's about banning assault rifles. What's so wrong with that? Quoting: Paid Shill It's unConstitutional and an obvious prelude to genocide. Other than that, nothing. It's not unconstitutional to place certain limits to rights we are guaranteed in the constitution. While we have freedom of speech, it is within certain restrictions. While we are free from search and seizure by the Fourth Amendment, that too is subject to certain constitutional exceptions. Why wouldn't the Second Amendment be any different? "shall not be infringed" seems pretty absolute, to me at least. The Founders knew what they were doing. Good argument. Unfortunately the Supreme Court does not agree with you. I'm Definitely Not A Paid Shill |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 5648569 United States 12/30/2012 01:34 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Was reading the comments. There's a link to an interview with a DHS insider, i am not sure if this is a valid source, but scary information to say the least. Check it: Quoting: Gregor Samsa [link to www.canadafreepress.com] It is valid, trust me. Why so sure? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 29974722 United Kingdom 12/30/2012 01:34 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: TTX8K82 I keep asking the gun control fans, "what is an assault rifle" to date none can answer. I'm sorry, I mistyped. I mean, it's about banning assault-type weapons, such as automatic and semi-automatic rifles. And once they're banned, and a shooting occurs with a rifle or pistol, a ban will follow after that. There's a reason why Obama pretends to cry over the deaths of school children in the US while at the same time has no trouble bombing any one else in other countries where it won't effect his reputation. he never cries over the dead in chicago, never. the number has reached 500 this year alone and not one obama tear. one would think he only cares about shootings when there is a political benefit to his agenda? that couldn't be could it? Which shows he has an agenda, the question is why is he anti gun and what ideology is he following |
Prof. Einstein User ID: 31099822 United States 12/30/2012 01:40 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I haven't heard a single credible source say that our government was going to ban ALL guns. It's about banning assault rifles. What's so wrong with that? Quoting: Paid Shill It's the camel's nose under the tent. Anyway, hardly anyone in the USA legally owns an "Assault Rifle". Do you even know what the term means? well, in yer case it would mean any of the weapons that you own. I'm a British subject. I don't own any firearms. Though I could, quite legally, own shotguns and rifles. shotguns are good. i like shotguns. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 31146013 United Kingdom 12/30/2012 01:42 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31149505 It's unConstitutional and an obvious prelude to genocide. Other than that, nothing. It's not unconstitutional to place certain limits to rights we are guaranteed in the constitution. While we have freedom of speech, it is within certain restrictions. While we are free from search and seizure by the Fourth Amendment, that too is subject to certain constitutional exceptions. Why wouldn't the Second Amendment be any different? "shall not be infringed" seems pretty absolute, to me at least. The Founders knew what they were doing. Good argument. Unfortunately the Supreme Court does not agree with you. That's no surprise. They're mostly bought and paid for. Anyway, the "Constitution for the united States" is moot, and has been, since 1913. We're in the "velvet glove being pulled off the mailed fist" phase, now. It remains to be seen what US gunowners will do. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 31146013 United Kingdom 12/30/2012 01:48 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I haven't heard a single credible source say that our government was going to ban ALL guns. It's about banning assault rifles. What's so wrong with that? Quoting: Paid Shill It's the camel's nose under the tent. Anyway, hardly anyone in the USA legally owns an "Assault Rifle". Do you even know what the term means? I keep asking the gun control fans, "what is an assault rifle" to date none can answer. A rifle intended for assault purposes, I would presume. So...a rifle in the hands of a criminal Strictly speaking, all modern "assault rifles" are modelled on the concept of the German FG-42. A carbine-like paratrooper rifle, ("Fallschirm Gewehr") using an intermediate-power cartridge, and having selective-fire capability (auto or semi-auto), and having a large-capacity magazine (30 rounds or more). Kalashnikov used the FG-42 as the prototype for the infamous AK-47. |
TTX8K82 User ID: 26400095 United States 12/30/2012 02:00 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I haven't heard a single credible source say that our government was going to ban ALL guns. It's about banning assault rifles. What's so wrong with that? Quoting: Paid Shill In the end they want them all! And the slippery slope argument is a good one, but I seriously don't see revocation of the Second Amendment anytime in the immediate future. Just some much needed restrictions. What I c in the gun control debate is another divider between "we the people". While "I the government" keeps the debate going - they do it w/abortion - same sex marriage & more. we now live in red or blue states, people r moving into area's that r considered more acceptable to the poultices. So now it's ban this gun or that gun. Have u noticed while u want them 2 control the type of weapon we can have, they have eroded the 4th, 7th & really want the 1st? Is this check point, 1 of 4 or 5 between San Diego & PHX in violation of the 4th? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 31146013 United Kingdom 12/30/2012 02:04 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I haven't heard a single credible source say that our government was going to ban ALL guns. It's about banning assault rifles. What's so wrong with that? Quoting: Paid Shill In the end they want them all! And the slippery slope argument is a good one, but I seriously don't see revocation of the Second Amendment anytime in the immediate future. Just some much needed restrictions. What I c in the gun control debate is another divider between "we the people". While "I the government" keeps the debate going - they do it w/abortion - same sex marriage & more. we now live in red or blue states, people r moving into area's that r considered more acceptable to the poultices. So now it's ban this gun or that gun. Have u noticed while u want them 2 control the type of weapon we can have, they have eroded the 4th, 7th & really want the 1st? Is this check point, 1 of 4 or 5 between San Diego & PHX in violation of the 4th? :BPCP1: It's Fabian "Gradualism". Little by little, they intend to win. |
TTX8K82 User ID: 26400095 United States 12/30/2012 02:04 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31146013 It's the camel's nose under the tent. Anyway, hardly anyone in the USA legally owns an "Assault Rifle". Do you even know what the term means? I keep asking the gun control fans, "what is an assault rifle" to date none can answer. A rifle intended for assault purposes, I would presume. So...a rifle in the hands of a criminal Strictly speaking, all modern "assault rifles" are modelled on the concept of the German FG-42. A carbine-like paratrooper rifle, ("Fallschirm Gewehr") using an intermediate-power cartridge, and having selective-fire capability (auto or semi-auto), and having a large-capacity magazine (30 rounds or more). Kalashnikov used the FG-42 as the prototype for the infamous AK-47. In the US, I believe they added flash suppressor & bayonet mount. The US military says any fully automatic, which was banned in 82. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1202778 United States 12/30/2012 02:07 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
IssueX User ID: 14348632 United States 12/30/2012 02:22 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I haven't heard a single credible source say that our government was going to ban ALL guns. It's about banning assault rifles. What's so wrong with that? Quoting: Paid Shill In the end they want them all! And the slippery slope argument is a good one, but I seriously don't see revocation of the Second Amendment anytime in the immediate future. Just some much needed restrictions. What I c in the gun control debate is another divider between "we the people". While "I the government" keeps the debate going - they do it w/abortion - same sex marriage & more. we now live in red or blue states, people r moving into area's that r considered more acceptable to the poultices. So now it's ban this gun or that gun. Have u noticed while u want them 2 control the type of weapon we can have, they have eroded the 4th, 7th & really want the 1st? Is this check point, 1 of 4 or 5 between San Diego & PHX in violation of the 4th? excellent point never mind the redefinition of certain public spaces, such as airports, so that constitutional rights do not apply while you are within those boundaries I imagine they could begin to redefine all kinds of spaces: highways, shopping malls, parks, residential districts...until the bill of rights is effectively null and void without ever having to be annulled think of that disgusting roadside anal cavity search done to thoser two women just recently in Texas for no reasonable suspicion ...if that doesn't violate the 4th, I'm not sure what would |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 6568391 Bulgaria 12/30/2012 02:25 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 31146013 United Kingdom 12/30/2012 02:26 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: TTX8K82 I keep asking the gun control fans, "what is an assault rifle" to date none can answer. A rifle intended for assault purposes, I would presume. So...a rifle in the hands of a criminal Strictly speaking, all modern "assault rifles" are modelled on the concept of the German FG-42. A carbine-like paratrooper rifle, ("Fallschirm Gewehr") using an intermediate-power cartridge, and having selective-fire capability (auto or semi-auto), and having a large-capacity magazine (30 rounds or more). Kalashnikov used the FG-42 as the prototype for the infamous AK-47. In the US, I believe they added flash suppressor & bayonet mount. The US military says any fully automatic, which was banned in 82. Oooooh, scary! Flash suppressors would obviously only be used by criminals, and BAYONET-MOUNTS! Well ... |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 31146013 United Kingdom 12/30/2012 02:28 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | And the slippery slope argument is a good one, but I seriously don't see revocation of the Second Amendment anytime in the immediate future. Just some much needed restrictions. What I c in the gun control debate is another divider between "we the people". While "I the government" keeps the debate going - they do it w/abortion - same sex marriage & more. we now live in red or blue states, people r moving into area's that r considered more acceptable to the poultices. So now it's ban this gun or that gun. Have u noticed while u want them 2 control the type of weapon we can have, they have eroded the 4th, 7th & really want the 1st? Is this check point, 1 of 4 or 5 between San Diego & PHX in violation of the 4th? :BPCP1: excellent point never mind the redefinition of certain public spaces, such as airports, so that constitutional rights do not apply while you are within those boundaries I imagine they could begin to redefine all kinds of spaces: highways, shopping malls, parks, residential districts...until the bill of rights is effectively null and void without ever having to be annulled think of that disgusting roadside anal cavity search done to thoser two women just recently in Texas for no reasonable suspicion ...if that doesn't violate the 4th, I'm not sure what would Notice how it was a one-glove, anal-then-vaginal probe, on two women? They are doing this shit on purpose, folks! |
Chris12138 User ID: 30911853 United States 12/30/2012 02:34 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
TTX8K82 User ID: 26400095 United States 12/30/2012 02:39 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Paid Shill And the slippery slope argument is a good one, but I seriously don't see revocation of the Second Amendment anytime in the immediate future. Just some much needed restrictions. What I c in the gun control debate is another divider between "we the people". While "I the government" keeps the debate going - they do it w/abortion - same sex marriage & more. we now live in red or blue states, people r moving into area's that r considered more acceptable to the poultices. So now it's ban this gun or that gun. Have u noticed while u want them 2 control the type of weapon we can have, they have eroded the 4th, 7th & really want the 1st? Is this check point, 1 of 4 or 5 between San Diego & PHX in violation of the 4th? excellent point never mind the redefinition of certain public spaces, such as airports, so that constitutional rights do not apply while you are within those boundaries I imagine they could begin to redefine all kinds of spaces: highways, shopping malls, parks, residential districts...until the bill of rights is effectively null and void without ever having to be annulled think of that disgusting roadside anal cavity search done to thoser two women just recently in Texas for no reasonable suspicion ...if that doesn't violate the 4th, I'm not sure what would Notice how it was a one-glove, anal-then-vaginal probe, on two women? They are doing this shit on purpose, folks! I heard about this - have not watched the video yet cause it's going 2 piss me off - I c all this as a very bad sign of things to come. I was in the Congo for 2 years & we bitched about all the check points - now it is happening here, also when in Mexico. |
lou1119 User ID: 29890754 United States 12/30/2012 02:42 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
THORR User ID: 30485921 United States 12/30/2012 02:43 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | plz read it [link to www.canadafreepress.com] |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 30663645 United States 12/30/2012 02:54 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The Amerikan fascist empire will attack Russia next. Its not in Russia's interest to see the patriotic militia opposing the Obama dictatorship disarmed. Quoting: Mr. Toppit Pragmatic lol no, we are not going to engage russia As is the way of things, Russia might well turn out to be an ally! Never Ever think That mate! |
s. d. butler User ID: 974819 United States 12/30/2012 02:56 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Glad to see this pinned! (we posted this within a minute of each other) Quoting: Ralph--a house dog a few excerpts: it is about power and a total power over the people. There is a lot of desire to bad mouth the Tsar, particularly by the Communists, who claim he was a tyrant, and yet under him we were armed and under the progressives disarmed. Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear. ------ We are told that everyone would just start shooting each other and crime would be everywhere....but criminals are still armed and still murdering and too often, especially in the far regions, those criminals wear the uniforms of the police. The fact that everyone would start shooting is also laughable when statistics are examined. ------ While President Putin pushes through reforms, the local authorities, especially in our vast hinterland, do not feel they need to act like they work for the people. They do as they please, a tyrannical class who knows they have absolutely nothing to fear from a relatively unarmed population. This in turn breeds not respect but absolute contempt and often enough, criminal abuse. ------ For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room. Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position. Good on you Ralph and A/C for posting this. It is the exact truth. Anyone who disagrees is a blood enemy. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 22022484 United States 12/30/2012 03:10 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Catnip User ID: 24392638 United States 12/30/2012 03:16 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Glad to see this pinned! (we posted this within a minute of each other) Quoting: Ralph--a house dog a few excerpts: it is about power and a total power over the people. There is a lot of desire to bad mouth the Tsar, particularly by the Communists, who claim he was a tyrant, and yet under him we were armed and under the progressives disarmed. Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear. ------ We are told that everyone would just start shooting each other and crime would be everywhere....but criminals are still armed and still murdering and too often, especially in the far regions, those criminals wear the uniforms of the police. The fact that everyone would start shooting is also laughable when statistics are examined. ------ While President Putin pushes through reforms, the local authorities, especially in our vast hinterland, do not feel they need to act like they work for the people. They do as they please, a tyrannical class who knows they have absolutely nothing to fear from a relatively unarmed population. This in turn breeds not respect but absolute contempt and often enough, criminal abuse. ------ For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room. Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position. Exactly! To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson: A well-armed society is protection against tyranny. "When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change" |