American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Caricoso;430935]I just wonder how we "citizens" can stop a government's army with our guns at home. Just curious![/QUOTE]If a country tried to invade the US East Coast do you think it is likely they would receive more resistance from an armed or an unarmed population? Look at history and the answer should be pretty clear. If we were being invaded groups otherwise known as militias would form and would coordinate attacks on any invading force. This can be quite effective actually especially when they then blend back into the citizenry. If this weren't important then why does our and every other country's state department track the number of armed citizens in countries around the World? Wake up, the fact that 100 million armed citizens would greet any invading force certainly helps restrain counties with many soldiers but relatively little supply and air capability.

Similarly, look at World history. Armed citizenry tends to keep leaders in check because they can't exert their illegal will on the people as a dictator as easily. There is no guarantee that the military would come to their aid as the code of conduct makes it clear that military members must follow legal orders. A tyrant giving orders that do not conform to the Constitution which gives the tyrant power in the first place would not be lawful and therefore, should not be followed. You can't beat the tanks, but you can defeat the desire to fire on one's citizenry and exact important and meaningful change back to the foundation of the country. The formers never wanted another omnipotent King to be in place because the US Government is of the people and for the people. At some point, we got to PC and stopped having citizens dedicated to service get in office (in many cases) and instead created a new profession, largely of inept lawyers (no offence to the good ones) , called politicians.

It is only a matter of time until the "king" tries to get rid of Presidential term limits. WE should enact term limits for all of Congress so politics as a profession and the need to be in the back pocket of "sponsors" would be lessened.

Pete

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

------------------------------

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WW II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

[QUOTE=Jackson; 430947]A LITTLE GUN HISTORY.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.[/QUOTE]So are you claiming that the the thing that prevents the USA Government from detaining anyone whom it deems a threat is that they may be armed with say, a Bushmaster AR15 maybe a Glock, maybe an Uzi, and maybe a Sig Sauer, and several large magazines with each? If so, you cannot be serious. The USA has much bigger, much badder weapons that it can use on anyone whom it deems to be a criminal. For example, occassionally, bad drug operations have been taken down with armored tanks and RPGs. I would suggest that the thing that ACTUALLY prevents the U.S. from detaining/exterminating anyone whom it wishes to is the silly little requirement that they have probable cause to arrest you, and then you as a citizen have a Constitutional right of a fair trial.

[QUOTE=Jackson; 430947]A LITTLE GUN HISTORY.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

-

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100, 000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300, 000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

-

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WW II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED![/QUOTE]Nobody invades the Swiss, they are armed too, and they also mind their own business internationally.

[QUOTE=Jackson; 430947]A LITTLE GUN HISTORY.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

-

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100, 000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300, 000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

-

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WW II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED![/QUOTE]So if all these people were armed with guns and rifles?

Now I realize I am a 'coward' because when I was in a conflict, all I had in my mind was to run home to make sure that my family was ok.

I that time the more frightening experience I had was when a soldier points at me with his rifle and said. MOVE! (I moved!)

What would you do in a situation like that?

Wasn't General Patton that said something like. I don't want my soldiers to die for their country! I want the enemy to die for his?

[QUOTE=Silver Star;430949]Nobody invades the Swiss, they are armed too, and they also mind their own business internationally.[/QUOTE]Nobody invades the swiss because the "nobodies" (not even during WW2) have all the money in that country! They are really smart!

[QUOTE=Member #2041;430948]So are you claiming that the the thing that prevents the USA Government from detaining anyone whom it deems a threat is that they may be armed with say, a Bushmaster AR15 maybe a Glock, maybe an Uzi, and maybe a Sig Sauer, and several large magazines with each? If so, you cannot be serious. The USA has much bigger, much badder weapons that it can use on anyone whom it deems to be a criminal. For example, occassionally, bad drug operations have been taken down with armored tanks and RPGs. I would suggest that the thing that ACTUALLY prevents the U.S. from detaining/exterminating anyone whom it wishes to is the silly little requirement that they have probable cause to arrest you, and then you as a citizen have a Constitutional right of a fair trial.[/QUOTE]Hi,

Some of you guys are so tactically inexperienced that you're embarrassing yourselves, especially when you trout out that tired, worn out "[i]Hey man, your hunting rifles and pistols are no match against the army's superior firepower[/i]" argument.

Let me explain if to you as if you were a child.

First, any tyrannical government, either foreign or domestic, will seek to subjugate the citizenry in order to continue to feed off of their productivity. There would be no point in completely annihilating the citizenry because then they'd would have reduced themselves to having conquered a rock.

Second, the way an armed citizenry fights a tyrannical government, either foreign or domestic, is by using guerrilla strategies, not by a direct confrontation which they would surely lose. History is replete with examples of citizens successfully thwarting tyrannical government forces in this manner, but you need look no further than the accounts of our own military's difficulties in dealing with "lightly armed" citizens in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Finally, to answer Caricoso comments.

[QUOTE=Caricoso;430952]Now I realize I am a 'coward' because when I was in a conflict, all I had in my mind was to run home to make sure that my family was ok.[/quote]Given that in your world you wouldn't have any weapons, what exactly would you do if they weren't "ok"?

And...

[QUOTE=Caricoso; 430952]I that time the more frightening experience I had was when a soldier points at me with his rifle and said. MOVE! (I moved!)

What would you do in a situation like that?[/QUOTE]The answer: Move on, go home, get your rifle, get on a roof top, and take the fucker out.

Get it?

Thanks,

Jackson

Some Guns are Okay, but not Assault rifles or heavy duty Weapons.

Last week in a Gun turn drive, besides Assault Rifles they received two Rocket Launchers.

[url]http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/29/local/la-me-1230-rocket-launcher-20121230[/url]

Jackson we are talking about Gun Control in the USA not in some foreign country.

[quote]"First, any tyrannical government, either foreign or domestic, will seek to subjugate the citizenry in order to continue to feed off of their productivity. There would be no point in completely annihilating the citizenry because then they'd would have reduced themselves to having conquered a rock.

Second, the way an armed citizenry fights a tyrannical government, either foreign or domestic, is by using guerrilla strategies, not by a direct confrontation which they would surely lose. History is replete with examples of citizens successfully thwarting tyrannical government forces in this manner, but you need look no further than the accounts of our own military's difficulties in dealing with "lightly armed" citizens in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq."[/quote]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;430955]Some Guns are Okay, but not Assault rifles or heavy duty Weapons.[/QUOTE]"Assault rifles" refers to a physical style of rifle, generally mimicking an AR-15. However, the term "assault rifle", while intimating to pusses and providing fodder to liberal pundits, does not denote if a so-called "assault rifle" is a single shot, bolt action, semi-automatic (one trigger per shot), or fully automatic.

In any event, fully automatic weapons are already illegal, so I'll ask the same question I posed earlier in the thread:

Histrionics aside, EXACTLY what new gun laws do you wish to see enacted?

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;430956]Jackson we are talking about Gun Control in the USA not in some foreign country.[/QUOTE]You just don't get it.

It's precisely because American citizens are armed that our government is in check and cannot subjugate us.

An armed citizenry is the best defense against a tyrannical government.

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence said,"[i]When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. [/i]"

I normally don't post on this tread, and probably won't again, don't have time, too much girls and booze!

But El Jeffe I am soooo on your side on this! But you are technical wrong; fully automatic weapons are not illegal in the US, they are taxed! After all the treats of revolutions in the early 30`s the US government become frightening of the WORKERS actually going into a hardware store and buying the same shit the enforced had they created a mass hysteria with 'gangsters' and taxed fully automatic weapons and 'silencers' (actually a hearing protector, makes as much sense as banning exhaust systems on cars because bank robbers can sneak away) so WORKERS could not afford them (200 USD in 1934).

In 1986 it was sneaked in a provision in the Volker-McClure. Act of 1986 that freeze the exiting numbers of fully automatic guns, diving up prizes. That mean that today a' rich fascist factory owner' can buy one of the few general electric minigun in existence and laugh all the way while Joe six-pack obviously can't.

As long as you do not have a felony arrest, passes background check get a NFA license in ALL states EXCEPT CA, DE, DC, Hi, NY, WA.

The 'rocket launchers' mentioned was empty tubes, any guy that served in the army know it get fired 100 000's of them every year and the tubes are like empty cans of coke, garbage that until very recently got sold in Surplus shops for nothing.

WT69; you are so far in the wilderness on this subject I have no reply other than to say that you having so much fucking time in Gay capital so please read some history and eat less propaganda bullshit!

Stranger that rely Loooove to have this convention in a month!

[QUOTE=Jackson; 430958]"Assault rifles" refers to a physical style of rifle, generally mimicking an AR-15. However, the term "assault rifle", while intimating to pusses and providing fodder to liberal pundits, does not denote if a so-called "assault rifle" is a single shot, bolt action, semi-automatic (one trigger per shot) , or fully automatic.

In any event, fully automatic weapons are already illegal, so I'll ask the same question I posed earlier in the thread:

Histrionics aside, EXACTLY what new gun laws do you wish to see enacted?

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]

Boy, you guys are just too funny!

(Jackson, if these moron posts are you written as a joke to wind up guys I will not be happy!)

Some gold nugget of idiocy:

'I would suggest that the thing that ACTUALLY prevents the USA from detaining / exterminating anyone whom it wishes to is the silly little requirement that they have probable cause to arrest you, and then you as a citizen have a Constitutional right of a fair trial. '

Hey did you know that they had more rights than that in the good old USSR? The point is that the a paper mean jackshirt, what are YOU going to do when the power that be do decide not to follow it? Cry until they feel sorry for you?

(You obviously have had a deep look into all the NDAA 2011?)

But this takes the buiscet:

'Wasn't General Patton that said something like? I don't want my soldiers to die for their country! I want the enemy to die for his? '

And that is an argument against guns? Yep, makes perfect sense!

Shit this is too fun to be true; people don't get that stupid and an Internet connection! Jackson, stop it!

Stranger

[QUOTE=Jackson; 430954]Hi,

Some of you guys are so tactically inexperienced that you're embarrassing yourselves, especially when you trout out that tired, worn out "[i]Hey man, your hunting rifles and pistols are no match against the army's superior firepower[/i]" argument.

Let me explain if to you as if you were a child.

First, any tyrannical government, either foreign or domestic, will seek to subjugate the citizenry in order to continue to feed off of their productivity. There would be no point in completely annihilating the citizenry because then they'd would have reduced themselves to having conquered a rock.

Second, the way an armed citizenry fights a tyrannical government, either foreign or domestic, is by using guerrilla strategies, not by a direct confrontation which they would surely lose. History is replete with examples of citizens successfully thwarting tyrannical government forces in this manner, but you need look no further than the accounts of our own military's difficulties in dealing with "lightly armed" citizens in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Finally, to answer Caricoso comments.

Given that in your world you wouldn't have any weapons, what exactly would you do if they weren't "ok"?

And.

The answer: Move on, go home, get your rifle, get on a roof top, and take the fucker out.

Get it?

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]Fabulous! So if I get on the roof of my house and I see a "couple of tanks" with army soldiers around I do what?

Did I say that (as it was usual every morning!) the official radio communicating something like anyone found with any type of weapons or attempting to do this or that, will be an enemy of the state?

That means. You were a roasted chicken!

Boy, am I having fun here!