Canadians did warn Americans and now it's happening to you ~ Gun confiscation coming | |
ar-15 nut User ID: 1281306 United States 01/12/2013 08:37 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 28563352 Canada 01/12/2013 08:40 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | It just makes me laugh that Piers Morgan is getting all his publicity by people watching how stupid he is. It's not like his ratings mean anything but to see his face as a dart board for common sense. One of the best cultural indicators is to watch the Drudge Report online - which as a cultural interface - is not politically influenced or maintained like newspapers. Its funny to see gun control legislation in maybe over 6 headlines on Drudge calling for civil war It makes me think that the political elite are purposely trying to polarize this issue - because they want to start false flag attacks - and to turn it into a civil war intentionally over gun control, whether real americans start standing up or not - they will start it with or without you perhaps. I just can't see any other way, because I don't believe they are that stupid to cause gun control legistation (or presidential vetos) in america, without knowing full well the outcome. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 32070722 United States 01/12/2013 08:51 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Gun Confiscation would INSTANTLY be met with violence unseen in America since the Civil War. There would be armed rebellion all over America, and I don't think His Highness King Hussein has the belly for it. There would be no telling what military officers might decide to honor their oaths, not to any president, but to the CONSTITUTION, and take matters into their own hands. (which is the proper response) Here are the oaths they take: The Commissioning Oath "I, _____ , having been appointed an officer in the (Service) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.) The Enlistment Oath "I, _____, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 28563352 Canada 01/12/2013 09:11 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Gun Confiscation would INSTANTLY be met with violence Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32070722 unseen in America since the Civil War. There would be armed rebellion all over America, and I don't think His Highness King Hussein has the belly for it. There would be no telling what military officers might decide to honor their oaths, not to any president, but to the CONSTITUTION, and take matters into their own hands. (which is the proper response) Here are the oaths they take: The Commissioning Oath "I, _____ , having been appointed an officer in the (Service) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.) The Enlistment Oath "I, _____, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). Here is the NYT: Let's Give Up the Constitution: [link to www.nytimes.com] "AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.(Supra)" Makes you think they are trying to purposely pave the way to civil war doesn't it? |
KateSask (OP) User ID: 15170057 Canada 01/12/2013 09:15 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Gun Confiscation would INSTANTLY be met with violence Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32070722 unseen in America since the Civil War. There would be armed rebellion all over America, and I don't think His Highness King Hussein has the belly for it. There would be no telling what military officers might decide to honor their oaths, not to any president, but to the CONSTITUTION, and take matters into their own hands. (which is the proper response) Here are the oaths they take: The Commissioning Oath "I, _____ , having been appointed an officer in the (Service) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.) The Enlistment Oath "I, _____, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). What does that mean then when Chris Cox from the NRA say's that if one more anti-gun justice is appointed to the Supreme Court, can they vote out the 2nd amendment? Watch this video from 9 mins on, I don't understand what he means. (I also realize this was before Obama was elected, but now that he is, that's scary from what this Chris said beforehand.) |
KateSask (OP) User ID: 15170057 Canada 01/12/2013 09:24 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | hoping to get an answer on my last posted question!!!! |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 32070722 United States 01/12/2013 09:31 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Gun Confiscation would INSTANTLY be met with violence Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32070722 unseen in America since the Civil War. There would be armed rebellion all over America, and I don't think His Highness King Hussein has the belly for it. There would be no telling what military officers might decide to honor their oaths, not to any president, but to the CONSTITUTION, and take matters into their own hands. (which is the proper response) Here are the oaths they take: The Commissioning Oath "I, _____ , having been appointed an officer in the (Service) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.) The Enlistment Oath "I, _____, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). What does that mean then when Chris Cox from the NRA say's that if one more anti-gun justice is appointed to the Supreme Court, can they vote out the 2nd amendment? Watch this video from 9 mins on, I don't understand what he means. (I also realize this was before Obama was elected, but now that he is, that's scary from what this Chris said beforehand.) The CONSTITUTION can be amended, but NOBODY will EVER touch THE BILL OF RIGHTS. Those first ten amendments are sacrosanct in America. If in Bizarro world, there was an Amendment passed that limited the Second Amendment, it could NEVER get ratified by the States. |
KateSask (OP) User ID: 15170057 Canada 01/12/2013 09:44 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Gun Confiscation would INSTANTLY be met with violence Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32070722 unseen in America since the Civil War. There would be armed rebellion all over America, and I don't think His Highness King Hussein has the belly for it. There would be no telling what military officers might decide to honor their oaths, not to any president, but to the CONSTITUTION, and take matters into their own hands. (which is the proper response) Here are the oaths they take: The Commissioning Oath "I, _____ , having been appointed an officer in the (Service) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.) The Enlistment Oath "I, _____, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). What does that mean then when Chris Cox from the NRA say's that if one more anti-gun justice is appointed to the Supreme Court, can they vote out the 2nd amendment? Watch this video from 9 mins on, I don't understand what he means. (I also realize this was before Obama was elected, but now that he is, that's scary from what this Chris said beforehand.) The CONSTITUTION can be amended, but NOBODY will EVER touch THE BILL OF RIGHTS. Those first ten amendments are sacrosanct in America. If in Bizarro world, there was an Amendment passed that limited the Second Amendment, it could NEVER get ratified by the States. Thanks for clarification, I hope you're right though. God speed to you. Last Edited by KateSask on 01/12/2013 09:44 PM |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 32070722 United States 01/12/2013 09:49 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Gun Confiscation would INSTANTLY be met with violence Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32070722 unseen in America since the Civil War. There would be armed rebellion all over America, and I don't think His Highness King Hussein has the belly for it. There would be no telling what military officers might decide to honor their oaths, not to any president, but to the CONSTITUTION, and take matters into their own hands. (which is the proper response) Here are the oaths they take: The Commissioning Oath "I, _____ , having been appointed an officer in the (Service) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.) The Enlistment Oath "I, _____, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). What does that mean then when Chris Cox from the NRA say's that if one more anti-gun justice is appointed to the Supreme Court, can they vote out the 2nd amendment? Watch this video from 9 mins on, I don't understand what he means. (I also realize this was before Obama was elected, but now that he is, that's scary from what this Chris said beforehand.) The CONSTITUTION can be amended, but NOBODY will EVER touch THE BILL OF RIGHTS. Those first ten amendments are sacrosanct in America. If in Bizarro world, there was an Amendment passed that limited the Second Amendment, it could NEVER get ratified by the States. He's talking about the Supreme Court decision that affirmed the individual right to keep and bear arms. That was a landmark case, but it really just affirmed what has been a fact for over two hundred years, and was the clear intent of the founders from the start. The Second Amendment says: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The definition of the militia according to the founders was, ALL ABLE BODIED MEN. ALL of them. The first phrase frames one reason, and perhaps at that time, the most important reason, for the main point: THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED A well armed citizenry was considered essential to the new Republic, and with a damn near totalitarian federal government, it is even more so today. |
KateSask (OP) User ID: 15170057 Canada 01/12/2013 09:59 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Thanks for all the information, learning lots and I appreciate that. Just out of curiosity, how did the cops get away with confiscating guns during Katrina then? I just found this searching youtube about gun confiscation btw. Can they do this if a state of emergency is called or something? The Untold Story of Gun Confiscation After Katrina |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 28563352 Canada 01/12/2013 10:05 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Gun Advocates Celebrate 'Secret' Obamacare Provision Forbidding Exec Order To Regulate Guns And Ammo [link to www.forbes.com] So you guys can take this legislation to your doctor when they ask you about guns in the US of A. (c) PROTECTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT GUN RIGHTS.— ‘‘(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS.— A wellness and health promotion activity implemented under subsection (a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any information relating to— ‘‘(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully- possessed firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual; or ‘‘(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual.
‘‘ (2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION.—None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the collection of any in- formation relating to— ‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; ‘‘(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or ‘‘(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition. ‘‘(3) LIMITATION ON DATABASES OR DATA BANKS.—None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used to maintain records of individual ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition. If you count yourself among those who object to any legislation or executive order that could limit or delay your ability to buy a flamethrower at the local gun show, this is certainly language that will put a smile on your face as this provision limits opportunities to collect and keep data on those who own firearms while creating some roadblocks when it comes to government’s ability to track whether or not you keep a weapon in your home, etc. (Supra)" Apparently some NRA senator snuck this legislation in or something LOL, at the last moment... not like anybody reads those bills ... I'm sure the globalists are fuming about it. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 32039771 Canada 01/12/2013 10:13 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
KateSask (OP) User ID: 15170057 Canada 01/12/2013 10:14 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Just been reading about this: Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28563352 Gun Advocates Celebrate 'Secret' Obamacare Provision Forbidding Exec Order To Regulate Guns And Ammo [link to www.forbes.com] So you guys can take this legislation to your doctor when they ask you about guns in the US of A. (c) PROTECTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT GUN RIGHTS.— ‘‘(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS.— A wellness and health promotion activity implemented under subsection (a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any information relating to— ‘‘(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully- possessed firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual; or ‘‘(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual.
‘‘ (2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION.—None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the collection of any in- formation relating to— ‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; ‘‘(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or ‘‘(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition. ‘‘(3) LIMITATION ON DATABASES OR DATA BANKS.—None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used to maintain records of individual ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition. If you count yourself among those who object to any legislation or executive order that could limit or delay your ability to buy a flamethrower at the local gun show, this is certainly language that will put a smile on your face as this provision limits opportunities to collect and keep data on those who own firearms while creating some roadblocks when it comes to government’s ability to track whether or not you keep a weapon in your home, etc. (Supra)" Apparently some NRA senator snuck this legislation in or something LOL, at the last moment... not like anybody reads those bills ... I'm sure the globalists are fuming about it. Wow, good one! |
KateSask (OP) User ID: 15170057 Canada 01/12/2013 10:17 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | what will canadians do when the corrupt skum who rule them decide to genocide them? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32039771 and i will not shed a tear, for most canadians are dumb brainwashed retards who think guns are bad and government is god And then there's those who did not comply and are now considered criminals in this FREE country we call Canada. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 28563352 Canada 01/12/2013 10:27 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | what will canadians do when the corrupt skum who rule them decide to genocide them? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32039771 and i will not shed a tear, for most canadians are dumb brainwashed retards who think guns are bad and government is god And then there's those who did not comply and are now considered criminals in this FREE country we call Canada. and there are those like me who are too young to own a gun without committing to tons of legislation and background checks which i refuse to go through - i've already sued the gov and won - which took endless years - and i don't exactly want gun owernship on any legal category being that the intelligence community is invasive enough... |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 27794780 United States 01/12/2013 10:28 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 28563352 Canada 01/12/2013 10:29 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | in canada you have to register with the gov any lawsuits you have had, or any relationships you may have had with psychiatrists - or any failed relationships in recent times, etc.... LOL it would be fun for me to answer... 1. lawsuit with gov... won 2. private info 3. private info 4. huge etc... none of the gov' goddamned business! |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 28563352 Canada 01/12/2013 10:32 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | And this is not Canada, and idiot ville which it seems to be up there with any of this! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27794780 I think part of the problem is that our lobbies aren't as strong as the people's down south - and our governments get lobbied just as hard by globalist transnational money. Having said that, shit gets passed a lot easier. Even free trade in Canada is considered a national security issue, to high for our own MP's to query. free trade in other words, is just another word for offshore bank accounts controlling the world as taxen havens, war safe havens, and transnational despotism of the world elite. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 9194649 Canada 01/12/2013 10:34 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | pssst....hey dumbass, it's your uncle, listen. After a lengthy debate, MPs voted 159-130 in favour of passing Bill C-19, which will end the registry and allow the government to destroy records pertaining to non-restricted firearms. [link to calgary.ctvnews.ca] |
KateSask (OP) User ID: 15170057 Canada 01/12/2013 10:43 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | pssst....hey dumbass, it's your uncle, listen. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 9194649 After a lengthy debate, MPs voted 159-130 in favour of passing Bill C-19, which will end the registry and allow the government to destroy records pertaining to non-restricted firearms. [link to calgary.ctvnews.ca] I know that and posted the video on pg 1 of this thread of our Canadian hero, MP Candace Hoeppner who fought hard to get this done for us Canadians. Go watch the video you dumbass uncle! A hell, here's a better video I found, watch this one. Last Edited by KateSask on 01/12/2013 10:49 PM |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 28563352 Canada 01/12/2013 10:47 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | pssst....hey dumbass, it's your uncle, listen. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 9194649 After a lengthy debate, MPs voted 159-130 in favour of passing Bill C-19, which will end the registry and allow the government to destroy records pertaining to non-restricted firearms. [link to calgary.ctvnews.ca] Its not the same thing.... Its your application for a firearms license/permit that asks you all those invasive questions ... and once its logged, even if you still get a firearms license - that info will likely show on any interaction that takes place with you and an officer in the future. If your firearms permit is denied, it will likely show anyway on any police officers computer if queried via license plate, etc. Personally I'm happier the less the law knows about me. I'm not registering as a "risk" who doesn't get to prove their innocence. its kinda like pre-crime legislation if you ask me, and I'm morally opposed to it. I've got the application somewhere at home, and I refuse to fill it out by half a dozen authorities who would have to make stateements... |
[email protected] User ID: 28070022 Canada 01/12/2013 11:32 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Yep and we finally put a stop the long gun registry.. but they still have yet to destroy these records as well police have found other ways to determine who owns what guns. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 30752346 Here we have non-restricted, restricted and prohibited class. Prohibs are illegal to own or shoot without a class of license which is nearly impossible for a civilian to get. They include all semi auto AK variants as well as the FAL, anything capable of automatic fire and any pistol with a barrel under 4" as well as many other firearms. Centre fire semi auto rifles must have their magazine capacity limited to 5 rounds and pistols are limited to 10. So almost all regular capacity magazines are banned and must be pinned to meet the 5 or ten round maximum by the manufacturer. All of our ARs are restricted call as well as any centre fire rifle with a barrel length under 18 inches, as well as some rimfire semi auto rifles which merely resemble an AR, and all pistols and revolvers with barrel lengths above 4". Restricted class can only be fired on CFO approved ranges, possession requires a special restricted class license and you must justify your intentions with the restricted firearm to be for either collection or target shooting purposes, in which case you must join a gun club and obtain an ATT (authority to transport) which takes several months to complete. The ATT is required to drive your restricted firearm to the range and you may only have the firearm in your possession outside of your dwelling while traveling directly to or back home from the range. So you can not possibly use a restricted firearm as a "trunk gun" as it may only be transported directly to and back home from the range, nor can they be used for hunting at all as the can only be fired at approved ranges. The rest fall under non restricted and these are all manually operated shotguns with unmodified barrels, centre fire and rim fire rifles with barrel lengths over 18". Semis pinned to 5 rounds may be used for hunting and rimfires have no magazine restrictions so a 10/22 with a 30 round mag is legal to hunt with, but a ruger MK1/2/3 is not (it is restricted). All non restricted firearms must be stored unloaded with a trigger lock or in a container which is locked and difficult to break into. All restricted firearms must be stored with a trigger lock as well as in a opaque locked container which is difficult to break into, or a safe or room specifically designed for the storage of firearms. Ammunition must be stored separately from the firearms or be in a locked container that is difficult to break into. So basically if you follow the laws your firearms are made useless for home-defense. I keep a wrecking bar handy for that instead because my guns and ammo are ALWAYS locked and unloaded unless I am on the range. There is no such thing as a CCW permit here. If you open carry in public and somebody complains you will certainly have a visit from the RCMP. Non restricted firearms need only to be unloaded for transport so some people do have pump action shotguns for their "truck gun" and that is legal for transportation wherever you want to go, but not necessarily for storage as your firearms MUST be stored at the address your license is linked to. This is what they did to us and barely anybody gets murdered with long guns in Canada so get ready to be fucked just like we were.... They just came and took at them. The only people with an AK in Canada are the gangs now. We are lucky though, in that we get cheap Chinese guns and you don't. $350 sig and 1911 clones and $450 for an m14. I see you guys are paying $2000 for an AR now. We can get the Norinco CQ-A for $800 but an AR made in the states is closer to $1200. Oh yeah and of course all restricted firearms are still being registered. Now the beurocrats who run the registry are paying us back for getting rid of all their hard work over the past decade by taking their sweet time to register and transfer the ownership of restricteds after sale. So it can take 3-6 months just to get the short term ATT (STATT) in order to simply have your new pistol/AR shipped to your home. READ IT ALL! READ IT! Takes a couple of days to transfer registration and when that is done then it takes me 1 day to get a STATT and ATT All done in a week. Not sure what province you are in ? but that sure is slow. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 32005678 United States 01/12/2013 11:33 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 28870983 United States 01/12/2013 11:35 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 32005678 United States 01/12/2013 11:37 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | This was the warning after WE got suckered in. Watch it before it's too late for you. Quoting: KateSask [link to www.youtube.com] A few major differences though..... 1) Canada had no Second Amendment 2) Canada did not fight a Revolutionary War over this (prompted in part by a King trying to tax ball and powder out of existence) 3) America is the last bastion of FREEDOM in an otherwise SOCIALIST controlled world. (although Obama is destroying more of that every day) 4) Most Americans are well aware of the history of disarmed peoples and countries...and what happens to them. No, the USA will not go quietly into the night like Canada did. It's clear there will be another Civil War before that happens. ...and the corrupt USA government knows this as evidenced by all it's ongoing ammunition purchases. :gncntrl: Which should be absolute ROCK SOLID evidence (even to a libtard) that this disgustingly anti-american "government" is more than willing to pull off another Mao, or Stalin, or Hitler, or Castro, or Pol Pot. All in the name of "protecting you". |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 32005678 United States 01/12/2013 11:42 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | This was the warning after WE got suckered in. Watch it before it's too late for you. Quoting: KateSask [link to www.youtube.com] A few major differences though..... 1) Canada had no Second Amendment 2) Canada did not fight a Revolutionary War over this (prompted in part by a King trying to tax ball and powder out of existence) 3) America is the last bastion of FREEDOM in an otherwise SOCIALIST controlled world. (although Obama is destroying more of that every day) 4) Most Americans are well aware of the history of disarmed peoples and countries...and what happens to them. No, the USA will not go quietly into the night like Canada did. It's clear there will be another Civil War before that happens. ...and the corrupt USA government knows this as evidenced by all it's ongoing ammunition purchases. :gncntrl: Which should be absolute ROCK SOLID evidence (even to a libtard) that this disgustingly anti-american "government" is more than willing to pull off another Mao, or Stalin, or Hitler, or Castro, or Pol Pot. All in the name of "protecting you". |
KateSask (OP) User ID: 15170057 Canada 01/12/2013 11:50 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Just watching this document called "open carry your gun BIAS canadian gun control". All I can say is banning guns is only taking them from the wrong people. We all know that though. It's depressing. Last Edited by KateSask on 01/12/2013 11:50 PM |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 27450644 United States 01/12/2013 11:51 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | This was the warning after WE got suckered in. Watch it before it's too late for you. Quoting: KateSask [link to www.youtube.com] They told us about political correctness, progressive liberalism in government, socialism in government and even a push to condone pedophilia which is now happening.They gave us a compleat map of things to come and we as Americans just laughed and said "never in America" and then when we had the chance to maybe recover we reelected the progressive socialist administration that created the hard times that built there voter base by offering security for freedom and we will all end up with neither and get what we deserve. Don't waste your time on us Canada, we don't listen and we have sold our souls for food stamps. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 30670070 United States 01/12/2013 11:57 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | in canada you have to register with the gov any lawsuits you have had, or any relationships you may have had with psychiatrists - or any failed relationships in recent times, etc.... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28563352 LOL it would be fun for me to answer... 1. lawsuit with gov... won 2. private info 3. private info 4. huge etc... none of the gov' goddamned business! I guess under Obamacare any "relationships" we've had with shrinks will be available to the government in our Electronic Health Records. So that's worse than having to admit something they may not already know. They already know. But any failed relationships? WTF does that mean? "I don't have a failed relationship -- I got away from that bitch (or equivalent if you're female describing a male) with my whole skin, so that was a success!" |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 30670070 United States 01/12/2013 11:59 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | This was the warning after WE got suckered in. Watch it before it's too late for you. Quoting: KateSask [link to www.youtube.com] They told us about political correctness, progressive liberalism in government, socialism in government and even a push to condone pedophilia which is now happening.They gave us a compleat map of things to come and we as Americans just laughed and said "never in America" and then when we had the chance to maybe recover we reelected the progressive socialist administration that created the hard times that built there voter base by offering security for freedom and we will all end up with neither and get what we deserve. Don't waste your time on us Canada, we don't listen and we have sold our souls for food stamps. We didn't reelect Obama. He lost. But they fudged things (they were forced to do it obviously because their Bengazigate lie came flying out into the open) and put him back in anyway. Never forget that Obama was not reelected. It is important to keep that in mind. |