Obama - Guns

POSTED BY: Wulfenstar
UPDATED: Sunday, December 28, 2008 14:50
VIEWED: 7344
PAGE 1 of 1

WULFENSTAR

Sunday, December 21, 2008 12:12 AM

Ok, so a lot had been said about Bama trying to "take our guns"....

I'm no longer of the opinion that he will be so forthright in doing so.

Sure, if a disaster happens, he'll try and disarm us (think New Orleans and Katrina)..... but he won't try and pass it straight out.

What he MAY do however, is make "carrying concealed" illegal.

Opinions?

WHOZIT

Sunday, December 21, 2008 12:25 AM

You're making us think of what the future is bringing us, why do you think the the future is bringing us GREAT BIG GUNS!

I'm going to microwave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, December 21, 2008 3:19 AM

Guns are obsolete. Having them will not protect you.

Notice the person who said that Obama would try to take your guns away was not opponent John McCain or arch-rival Hillary Clinton, it was his own running mate Joe Biden.

I think the boys at CFR like gun ownership, they like to lend a hand to civil war. If you had a satelite system, they'd be worried.

AG05

Sunday, December 21, 2008 3:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Guns are obsolete. Having them will not protect you.

Notice the person who said that Obama would try to take your guns away was not opponent John McCain or arch-rival Hillary Clinton, it was his own running mate Joe Biden.

I think the boys at CFR like gun ownership, they like to lend a hand to civil war. If you had a satelite system, they'd be worried.

I disagree. Guns are most certainly not obselete, if people are motivated enough to use them. And I pray that things never get to that point again in this country.

I don't think and ban on ownership or private sale is going to happen, but I can see some feel-good bullshit like the old AWB coming back. God bless the panic buyers, they will ensure a healthy 2nd hand supply during the lean years.

BTW, who's CFR?

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, December 21, 2008 4:56 AM

1. Guns are so 20th century, like nukes.

2. CFR, council on foreign relations. They're a think tank that writes a lot of policy, including domestic. Both Obama and Biden are members, and I think the group is generally pro-gun. You'll run into a lot of conspiracy theory if you go searching, but it's a real organization, whether or not they're the illuminati, it's based right here in NY. Expect no real change in gun policy. Yeah, you might see assault weapons ban return, but it's a simple mod. Hence a meaningless law. You're more likely to see a ban on weapons in schools, perhaps armed security, that's a potential for a whole lot of abuse of power. I picture that's a green light for a lot of rentacop rapes student stories.

AG05

Sunday, December 21, 2008 5:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
1. Guns are so 20th century, like nukes.

Nonsense. A 60 year old rifle design with 11 moving parts has killed more people than any nuke, or any high-tech bombing campaign, for that matter.

Thanks for the info in the CFR, BTW. I'll have to look into that.

P.S I'm new here, do we have a standard smiley usedto indicate sarcasm/tounge-in-cheek posting? 'Cause I wanted to put one in after the "Nonsense".

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

COLE23

Sunday, December 21, 2008 6:29 AM

I live in a small town in Mississppi,where everyone has guns.I have five,and i'm more liberal than most in this area.
I was watching a program on Richard Ramirez,the serial killer,a few weeks ago,and I was thinking about it.This sick !@$# broke into all these houses and raped and murdered alot of People in California.I don't think he would get away with that in the South.He would be swiss cheese pretty quickly.
We are known for alot of bad things in the South,some deserved,some not.But we really don't have any serial killers,and I think it's because we are so well armed.
As far as Obama,I don't think he will try to take away guns.He might go for assault rifles,which is fine to me.I don't know why anyone would need one.They're only good for one thing,killing alot of people really quickly.

AG05

Sunday, December 21, 2008 6:29 PM

Quote:
As far as Obama,I don't think he will try to take away guns.He might go for assault rifles,which is fine to me.I don't know why anyone would need one.They're only good for one thing,killing alot of people really quickly.

I had my reasons for buying mine, since I lived in hurricane country and wanted a versatile hog hunting/hurricane gun. I took it with me when I evaced for Ike. Never had to display or use it, thank God.

More than that, I'm against the AWB on principle. I hate the idea that you should decide for me what I do or do not need. The fact that we're talking about a useful defensive tool makes this all the worse. I obey the law, I'm sane, and I'm willing to jump throught the requisite hoops to buy all the other guns, so why can I not be trusted with these?

BTW: I'm not ripping on you personally. My use "you" is collective.

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, December 21, 2008 9:39 PM

Interesting, given that it was on my mind last night, and both the Nukes and "no other use" concepts were involved in that rumination.

My home defense weapon has utterly no sporting use, none whatsoever.
In fact, it's express and intended purpose, which it has been rebuilt and custom designed to do, is to slaughter other human beings wholesale in a rapid and efficient fashion as quickly as possible, and that is indeed it's sole reason for existance.
Now, that might give you the willies, a bit, but think about something else - what ELSE is designed to those same specifications ?

Yep, that's right, a nuclear weapon.
And folks, what *happens* when a country that has nukes, takes issue with one that don't ?
You see just how *fast* the rest of the world backed offa North Korea when they pulled out thier CCW and showed us it was loaded ?
Why do you think the idea of other countries having them bothers the countries that already do ?
Cause then they cannot force thier will upon them militarily, something history has shown again and again is the root behind every single weapons ban that ever existed, the desire to inflict ones will upon another without effective resistance.
Look at Iraq, Afghanistan... think we woulda invaded them if they had the ability to wipe DC off the map ?
Or that Iran would be hiding behind the skirts of Mother Russia ?
Who will, more than likely eventually *give* them the technology and a couple starter bombs because they are more useful as an ally and customer than dependant - only fair, since we snuck the izzies some ourselves, and they've have stolen em anyway if we didn't.

And don't give me that tired, trite, laughable "But if they had one they'd..."
That's bullshit, all the trashtalk in the world isn't gonna cure the fact that if they DID that, about twenty minutes later, their whole county would look like THIS.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/trinitite.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_parking_lot
And you better believe they fucking know it, too.

And of course, now that most folks have them, just like the cowardly jackbooted thugs we call police, appalled at the notion that folks might just be able to (insert gasps of horror, panicked wailing) effectively DEFEND themselves, the powers that be are scrambling for some defense to shift the balance of power so they can once again act in predatory fashion without having to fear the teeth and claws of the prey.
Just like the police do when they call upon your home with a fuckin armored APC.*

At all levels, those in power act like the sociopathic predators they are, pure barbarians who would at any chance reduce us to rule of the gun and for the most part have successfully done so - it's a form of insanity on both a national, and a personal, scale, you see.
And to make it just that much worse, all completely unnecessary - as Canada showed us all when she bit her thumb at us and dismantled her nuclear arsenal, choosing to opt out of the global dick-measuring contest, but that only works if the other side isn't greedily eyeballing your resources with obvious intent to take them from you the moment you put down the weapons.

And so, I keep a horrific weapon with the most evil purpose one could imagine racked and ready in my home - and as far as I desire it can *stay* racked and ready for all eternity, I didn't build it to use, I built it for the THREAT of that use deterring those who would act aggressively to me, to make it abundantly clear that should all my efforts to prevent it otherwise fail, and it comes to that, short of dropping a bomb on my ass, the price of that aggression will be so high that negotiation becomes the most "cost-effective" option.

It's truly, the only civilized thing to do.
Why the Gun Is Civilization
http://www.corneredcat.com/Ethics/civilization.aspx

And lemme expound here on a personal note, since it's been plead and awaits only sentencing...

I recently had the experience of a law-enforcement officer stating a clear int

KWICKO

Monday, December 22, 2008 1:10 AM

As I've noted numerous times before, the main problems with Assault Weapons Bans (AWBs) is that:

1) When it was done before, it was used as a back-door economic stimulus to American "assault weapons" manufacturers, in that it was a ban only on IMPORTED "assault weapons", and

2) Nobody has really come up with a workable definition of what an "assault weapon" really IS. Generally speaking, the military defines assault rifles as being fully automatic and capable of "select-fire" or "burst-fire" modes of operation, in which two or three rounds can be fired with a single pull of the trigger. For civilian use, such weapons are considered "machineguns", and are already illegal for the vast majority of American civilians to own, manufacture, or use, unless they subject themselves to a battery of bureaucratic red tape and pay several layers of "fees" (or bribes) to the BATF. As such, REAL "assault weapons" are already banned to the general public.

Such Assault Weapons Bans, then, are merely feel-good legislation aimed at making people FEEL safer, rather than at actually making them safer. There aren't hordes of gangsters roaming the streets with fully-automatic AK47s here - and if there were, they'd already be deemed felons, with or without another pointless law.

What I *would* like to see is more enforcement of the gun laws already on the books, and bigger penalties for crimes committed with illegal guns and committed by people who illegally use otherwise legal guns.

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

DREAMTROVE

Monday, December 22, 2008 3:08 AM

Quote:

P.S I'm new here, do we have a standard smiley usedto indicate sarcasm/tounge-in-cheek posting? 'Cause I wanted to put one in after the "Nonsense".

No, and it's sadly lacking, it can be your contribution. Maybe you should start a thread to make a lexicon of of emoticons. A Lexemoticon

Sort of like the necronomicon, only less dead, and more cheery

DREAMTROVE

Monday, December 22, 2008 3:14 AM

Quote:
You see just how *fast* the rest of the world backed offa North Korea when they pulled out thier CCW and showed us it was loaded ?

Of course, that's all Mahmoud wants one for, and I'm not being sarcastic.

But Frem, and I mean this with no ill will but in all seriousness: you seem to have a case of rantotosis.

It's a serious condition, I used to have it. It causes posts to exceed 200 words, and sometimes way exceed. A little ginseng would calm that down. Making me wish I had one right now.

Myself, I've taken to reading the first 200 words of each post. I think this is the common hoffer, what most people do. So, if you want to determine what people read, edit.

Just a friendly reminder.

DREAMTROVE

Monday, December 22, 2008 3:19 AM

Quote:

quicko
There aren't hordes of gangsters roaming the streets with fully-automatic AK47s here

Yes there are, just not here. Try Obama's old neighborhood. The law don't break in when you an ak47. Actually, even here in remote nowhereland a friend last year was gunned down by a Crip from the city with an assault riffle. He bought some weed from the guy, and got shorted, and went back to demand the extra. Body buried in the woods, no charges filed against the Crip.

Ah, America, we are a nation of law and order.

COLE23

Monday, December 22, 2008 6:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AG05:
Quote:
As far as Obama,I don't think he will try to take away guns.He might go for assault rifles,which is fine to me.I don't know why anyone would need one.They're only good for one thing,killing alot of people really quickly.

I had my reasons for buying mine, since I lived in hurricane country and wanted a versatile hog hunting/hurricane gun. I took it with me when I evaced for Ike. Never had to display or use it, thank God.

More than that, I'm against the AWB on principle. I hate the idea that you should decide for me what I do or do not need. The fact that we're talking about a useful defensive tool makes this all the worse. I obey the law, I'm sane, and I'm willing to jump throught the requisite hoops to buy all the other guns, so why can I not be trusted with these?

BTW: I'm not ripping on you personally. My use "you" is collective.

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

No offence taken.In fact it's a damn good point.

MSA

Monday, December 22, 2008 6:52 AM

NVG here:

And everyone says marijuana is not a dangerous drug. Not to be a dick, but doing business with dirty mother fuckers will get you into trouble. It isn't the gun that is evil, merely the person willing to hurt others with it. And it must be a dumb mother fucker to expose themselves to long term prison for weed. I'm sorry you friend died, but the person who hurt them is more crazy than stupid.

And I am so happy to see folk informing others of what actual assault weapons are and the feel good (read as redundant) legislation behind the false definition. There are many uninformed and ignorant people (including some gun owners) that benefit from people like you. It is even better to be hearing from non gun owners chiming in on the issue. This has been my favorite place to weigh my own views on the whole issue.

To love someone is to see a miracle invisible to others.
--Francois Mauriac
It's fuzzy-minded liberal thinking like that that gets you eaten.

DREAMTROVE

Monday, December 22, 2008 11:41 PM

"That's the kind of wooly-headed liberal thinking that leads to being eaten."

Sorry, if you're going to quote one of the best lines ever, and aren't sure, use the google.

My friend, yeah, sure, I saw it coming, but there's a whole bunch of ways of looking at this

1. Those who don't go into hell neighborhoods like Obama's and fight massive crime there are like those who don't fight AIDS in the gay community in the '80s: People with no imagination. These are products for export. The killer in this case was a Crip, there are a few of them about, of more than one color, but they are all bad news. When we talk about assault rifles in the hands of americans who are actually going to use them? This is the #1 target group.

2. Banning guns is dumb, just like banning drugs, it just gives you no control over the market. Consider the FDA's approach to street drugs, and that roaring success, vs. their approach to food additives. Sure, they f^&k up on the latter, but at least they are able to have labels that contain notes that say "contains aspartame," or "not recommended to pregnant women." Maybe it would be a lot nicer if Marijuana came with a label that says "may cause permanent memory loss."

3. My second amendment right guarantees me as a member of a well ordered militia to possess, through that militia, a nuclear bomb. It does not give me a right to carry a gun for personal self defense, defense of my home, or for hunting. It's real clear what the founding fathers intended, which was for people to organize against unjust rule and defend themselves. People like the people in Waco, TX. But you see what little good it did them? This is because your right to have an M16 is useless when the govt. has a right to RPGs and incendiaries and tanks. And God I hope there's no one on the forum who is going to defend the attack on Waco.

Obviously, this cannot all be reconciled in a safe and sane way, and so a societies right to set its own rules needs to be maintained. That's the right of free association, the most important first amendment right.

Taken to its logical extreme, as the founding fathers, or the indians that they fought, or the settlers that confronted them, all would have agreed to do... There's something seriously wrong with this picture.

The Amish school shooting is a good example of how misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment conflicts with the 1st amendment. If you choose to have guns in your society, then someone might come in and shoot people. If you choose not to, then that ought to be your right.

For the record, if the Crips fall under anyone's description as a well ordered militia, so do the mafia, russian mafia, armenian mafia and Al Qaeda. Noting that there are more Muslims in the united states than any other non-christian religious group, the current logical interpretation should not in anyway bar the setting up of an American Mujahideen. All in support of that idea, say aye for an aye. Those who salute this idea, I'll grant the privilege of handing out assault rifles to its members. Careful to record the serial numbers, that might come in handy when the kill us all. Still, this is a more sane idea, and closer to what the founding fathers intended than for a person to carry assault rifles for their own personal purposes.

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, December 23, 2008 10:57 AM

Quote:
It isn't the gun that is evil, merely the person willing to hurt others with it.

And ain't that just the salient point of it all.

Weapons are not dangerous - people are.

-F

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, December 23, 2008 4:56 PM

Ah yes, I remember the school stabbings when a kid would go in and kill 22 of his classmates. The hostage standoffs, when the cornered desperate man would slay a half dozen cops before they skewered him, and ah yes, World War Zero, I recall it well. With our clubs in hand, we killed 2 million Japanese, and the germans, armed with spatulas, were able to round up 6 million jews who had no spatulas of their own.

KWICKO

Tuesday, December 23, 2008 7:26 PM

Quote:
and the germans, armed with spatulas, were able to round up 6 million jews who had no spatulas of their own.

Sounds to me like you're saying an unarmed populace is much easier to inflict your will on than an armed one. Maybe I'm reading that wrong...

Point is, how do you think that would have gone for the Nazis had they NOT disarmed the citizenry first? Think Hitler would have survived long enough to think about invading France or launching a bombing campaign against London? My bet is Poland and the Sudetenland are about as far as he would have gotten.

As for those who think that a few rowdies with a few firearms are no match for a full modern army, I'd merely point to Iraq and Afghanistan, where we've sent the absolute best our country can muster against "savages" with little more than an AK-47, an RPG, and an IED - and they've fought us to a stalemate.

*IF* it ever comes time for another American Revolution, I don't doubt for a minute that private citizens with their firearms would outmatch the U.S. military quite handily - unless you're ready to launch nuclear strikes inside your own country, which probably isn't going to work out for you, either.

Am I saying that any of this is going to happen? Nope. I'm saying that it's the constitutional basis for private citizens keeping weapons in this country - so we DON'T have it come to that point. Take away the weapons, and I pretty much guarantee you there'll be a war, and it will be an ugly, protracted, door-to-door geurilla war the likes of which this nation hasn't seen, except in faraway places like Falujah or Remagen.

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, December 23, 2008 10:16 PM

Point taken on the disarming of the jews. OTOH, two side notes, 1. there was complicity from israel which helped to disarm the jews, german gun control, sure, helped, but also, that the germans were able to round up lots of Poles, jewish and non, far more than German jews, with no gun control.

Additionally, It's a misreading of the constitution to say that we have a right to own guns. We have a right to arm a well ordered militia, a point made clear at the time. Had the jews and poles dones so, as the Iraqis have done, then the situation would have been very different, would it not?

Ultimately, it was not specific legislation, that was the determining factor. Just look at the rest of Europe as well. But ultimately the Mahdi army, a very well ordered militia, which ended up in control of Iraq.

Also, it was not the handgun that protected Iraq, and nothing protected it from serial bombardment of landmine scattering. Anti-aircraft and anti-missile system are currently protecting Iran. We know full well that our plans to bombard that nation would come to naught because we'd most likely get shot down as soon as we crossed the border. Initiating hostilities in that manner could give Iran the right to cross the border into either Iraq or Afghanistan, with their reserve army of 14 million men, and be welcomed with open arms by the people there on either side.

To finally nail this point more succinctly to the wall, the right to own guns for the branch davidians did them no good at all, in spite of their violation of gun control laws to secure a more sophisticated cache of weapons. And I would also note that the FBI claims of this as a cause for the attack are totally bogus, as they only discovered it when attempting to "cleanse" the compound. At this point, the story would support your case, but the next step was for the FBI to bring in through its ATF division, and under the direction of Arch-traitor Wesley Clarke, Tanks with incediaries, chemicals weapons and explosives. The tactics used to immolate the compound from the basement up left no possible defense for the well and conventionally armed residence of the Waco compound.

Hence, the interpretation of the second amendment as "personal gun ownership" is meaningless in terms of ultimate self defense against an oppressive govt. in the 21st century.

Sorry about the spatulas comment, I was aware of the situation, but I was being facetious. If we are not permitted a well armed militia capable of protecting us from unjust rule, then we have no second amendment rights. Try loading up with RPGs, IEDs and Anti-Aircraft artillery akin to what the Iraqis had, at your local Gun Depot and then registering those and seeing exactly how well Uncle Sam takes that idea. Also, bear in mind that the Iraqis vastly ournumbered us in their home turf. It put them at a tremendous advantage. If you have a colony that outnumbers the US domestic armed force of some 1.4 million, then I think you too stand a chance..

If there is to be no true second amendment right, then a more subtle tactic is needed. The pro-gun crowd are not only enabling and encouraging domestic chaos, they are hanging on a false hope, and ultimately, they are drawing attention to themselves.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, December 23, 2008 10:21 PM

Ps. You failed to catch me out on the sword issue. There was a severe amount of casualties inflicts during the rwandan genocide by machete. Still, it was severely outclassed by the American machine guns imported by Clinton. Less so, I would point out, in Croatia. Nothing like a good old walled city for defense. There had been gun control on Croatia, but not in Rwanda, so this also does not support the pro-gun cause. Personally I'm not advocating for gun control, but for the right of free association which pre-empts to the right to bear arms, and then for the right to bear arms be applied as it was both written and in more extensive writing, unmistakeably intended, as a collective right to equal firepower.

Lone man with a gun taking down enemy invasion in the 21st century is hollywood fantasy. Packaged and sold to you daily.

AG05

Wednesday, December 24, 2008 3:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Personally I'm not advocating for gun control, but for the right of free association which pre-empts to the right to bear arms, and then for the right to bear arms be applied as it was both written and in more extensive writing, unmistakeably intended, as a collective right to equal firepower.

Could you run tthat by me in Capt Dummy terms? What "free association" are you talking about and why does it pre-empt te right to bear arms?

And exactly who is the collective made up of, if not indivduals?

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, December 24, 2008 3:58 AM

I missed where I missed you.
A group like the branch davidians has a right to do their own collective consensual thing guaranteed by the first amendment. The second amendment is there to protect that right. Thus a well ordered militia.

It was never stated that the individuals right to do his own thing and do it with fire arms was never stated. There's no reason on this Earth that the founding fathers would have supported the idea, since they didn't have to imagine a future full of serial killers and spree shooters, it had already happened.

AG05

Wednesday, December 24, 2008 4:03 PM

I'm still a bit confused: Of whom would this "well-regulated militia" be made up? The people who are doing the free associatin'?

As to your belief that the right to keep and bear arms was intended to be and is a collective right: All I can say is I'm glad you're not on the Supreme Court.

When you break it down enough, the militia, the Army, the police, the gangs, they all come down to a guy with a gun, and what the folks who gave him that gun want him to do/ not do. I do not want to be at the mercy of that guy. It's that simple. I want to be able to at least attempt to defend myself from that guy.

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

OUT2THEBLACK

Wednesday, December 24, 2008 8:47 PM

This just in :

" Media silence on guns and ammo is a new tactic being used by the anti-gunners.

Ammunition Accountability Act

Remember how Obama said that he wasn't going to take your guns? Well, it seems that his minions and allies in the anti-gun world have no problem with taking your ammo!

The bill that is being pushed in 18 states (including TN, Illinois and Indiana ) requires all ammunition to be encoded by the manufacture, a data base of all ammunition sales. So they will know how much you buy and what calibers. Nobody can sell any ammunition after June 30, 2009 unless the ammunition is coded.

Any privately held uncoded ammunition must be destroyed by July 1, 2011. (Including handloaded ammo.) They will also charge a .05 cent tax on every round so every box of ammo you buy will go up at least $2.50 or more! If they can deprive you of ammo they do not need to take your gun!

Please give this the widest distribution possible and contact your Reps!

It's the ammo, not the guns...
I've said for a long time that they wouldn't go for your guns, they'd go for your ammo... guns have a Constitutional protection.

A list of states where this legislation is pending is in the final paragraph.

Heads up to all of you who swore to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign AND domestic. Let your state Legislatures know that we do not want this bill passed, and petition them to vote no on this bill. We should keep after them until the bill is closed by bombarding them with e-mails, phone calls, and letters.

Get to all your politicians to get to work and NOT LET THIS HAPPEN!!!

Below is a list of states where legislation has already been introduced:

Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington."

More information can be found at:

http://www.usavsus.info/US-AmmoRegistr.htm

OUT2THEBLACK

Wednesday, December 24, 2008 8:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

It was never stated that the individuals right to do his own thing and do it with fire arms was never stated. There's no reason on this Earth that the founding fathers would have supported the idea, since they didn't have to imagine a future full of serial killers and spree shooters, it had already happened.

That's an absurdity on its face...

" The Right of 'The PEOPLE' to Keep and Bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ."

Who are THE PEOPLE , if not Individuals ?

Better get busy checking Your History...We've been over this before...

The Supreme Court just upheld this Right in the DC case , but by a thin margin...

NVGHOSTRIDER

Wednesday, December 24, 2008 11:50 PM

Good afternoon everyone. Great conversation for Christmas Eve. Just some quick points and a gift of the like I never give. Please excuse the languge as it is not suited for younger or sensative audiences.

First off, "The People" are armed to keep the government from ruling with jack boots much the way the founding fathers fought the monarchy of England. Of course some people can't regulate themselves so why not allow that for all people. With a history of being repressed is it any wonder the Indians mentioned in your post still don't trust a government that historically has kept them down. Don't worry, your rights are just as important as theirs. We are all equal. As one of those "Indians" I will continue to believe in freedom and equality as it has been preached to me in the American school system despite how many examples I have seen against it. If need be I will defend the right of myself and others in whatever fashion needed to assert it's importance. Your midefined "Assault Rifle" remark is wrong. There are many more AK47 type rifles in the hands of the lawful citizen. They are the ones who get the true use of the weapon without ever firing a shot. They are capable of keeping the criminal element in check. Why? Because they fear being shot by the lawful owner.

Secondly Marijuana causes much more than just permenant memory loss. I've see tne effects on the kids I work with and there can be no mistake. Marijuana will damage people just the same as any other drug. Regardless if drugs are banned or not, there will always people selling under cost and without paying taxes. There will always be an illicit drug market.

Thirdly, I find it quite humorous that you would choose to correct my wifes misquote. Yes, I was logged in under her account as it clearly states:
"NVG here:"
So she misquoted, woopty-freakin-doo. The lack of a viable argument and the willingness to post any retort starting with some childish, "Ooh, you didn't say it right.", sort of remark shows just how much of an argument you don't have.

So here is the gift (remember, I rarely give out these sort of gifts as they are redundant except for passive aggressive 'net hardasses like yourself):
Shut the fuck up,
Sit the fuck down.
I deleted a large paragraph detailing you being defiled by the felonious sort that prey on the likes of you because of your own ignorance. Instead I pray you will never have to witness the horror of raped and murdered children, dead because a parent wasn't capable of stopping their attacker at the door with their "Assault Rifle".
I hope you will never have to witness your spouse raped and murdered because an "Assault Weapon" ban turned into a handgun ban and being handicapped your aren't capable of using a long gun.
And I could never wish a person beaten from the ancetoral home, starved and diseased, detached from who they are as a people simply because the government wanted your mineral/water/land rights for their own gain; or you disagreed with their execution of policy. These things have happened after peoples weapons rights were abolished. Not just to Jews or Indians, but in the American South as well. It has already happened and can very easily happen again. Even white folk aren't safe.

Again, if this was offensive to other members of the board, please excuse my post. I never, NEVER post anything remotely as offensive as this. I try to conduct myself respectfully and truthfully at all times. Call this a moment of weakness. It is unneccessary and childish. I did post a warning. Still, I am sorry.

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The country is making a big mistake not teaching kids to cook and raise a garden and build fires.
-Loretta Lynn

OUT2THEBLACK

Thursday, December 25, 2008 12:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by nvghostrider:
Good afternoon everyone. Great conversation for Christmas Eve. Just some quick points and a gift of the like I never give.

...I never, NEVER post anything remotely as offensive as this. I try to conduct myself respectfully and truthfully at all times. Call this a moment of weakness. It is unneccessary and childish. I did post a warning. Still, I am sorry.

Saw that comin'...

No need to apologize for telling the TRUTH . Ever .

As a rule , I go along with what Will Rogers had to say :

" Never give advice...The Wise don't need it , and the Stupid won't heed it..."

Still , isn't it ironical that Folk like Us are willing to defend the Rights of those who choose to remain ignorant ?

Semper Vigilo...Semper Paratus...

NVGHOSTRIDER

Thursday, December 25, 2008 12:57 AM

Too right sir.

Too right.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The country is making a big mistake not teaching kids to cook and raise a garden and build fires.
-Loretta Lynn

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, December 25, 2008 1:57 AM

I'm not the expert on constitution law, but I've worked with some and know some, and I can tell you that people here are way off course.

Directly, the reference to the militia occurs several times in the text and writings about it at the time.

The militia, in turn, was converted into the National Guard in 1903. At that point, the 2nd amendment, it could be argued, no longer applied.

The idea that an AK47 will protect you against unjust rule is absurd. I could say a number of other things about the posters of this thread who have said a good number of things about me. Instead I say to you, good day. Feel free to flame me all you want.

I was not against you, only pointing out the law, that which you are woefully ignorant of. When that fact meets you face to face, feel free to try these defenses to the court of law that bears charges against you, but don't blame me from your cell. I only attempted to state what the law said, and intended to say. There is no constitution right permitting you to carry a firearm for your personal use or to use any firearm against any trespasser. This is true even if you are a member of the national guard.

I'm sorry if the term indian offends you. Native American then, unless you prefer a tribal designation. I think I'll just stick with troll. That's not an ethnic slur, it's personal. Also, Fruitcake. I had no idea there were so many of them about.

All of you seem to like the idea of gangs with assault rifles roaming through your towns and schools. Well, I support the 2nd amendment as written and intended. Y'alls interpretation of it is f^&king looney tunes.

The gun right in DC is all about helping black people shoot each other, it was never about anything else. I would agree that govt. gun control would be about letting cops shoot people, and nothing else. It would be a disaster. That said, what a bunch of nutjobs. There wasn't even a shred of understanding of the concepts of either the constitution or law and order posted here lately. I oppose nutjobs with guns. Nobody here sounds like a well ordered militia.

A rod and gun club could make the case that they were a well ordered militia. You, on crack, holed up with your AK47 and your sawed off shotgun shooting trespassers, are not, and no court of law in the land will uphold that right.

You're making me think there should be an IQ test to getting a gun... oh dear, I'm feeding the troll. Screw it.

Merry Christmas to the people who are on this thread that I kinda like, though we might disagree about the interpretation of this law. I'm willing to discuss it in a less psychopath filled environment. Reavers, man.

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, December 25, 2008 2:23 AM

out2theblack

2nd amendment:

"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."

If this were not clear enough, lots was written about it at the time and since.

A gun is no protection against threats to "a free state."

The National Guard takes the definition of State literally, but more liberal applications have been applied.

By the logic stated on this thread, the right of Al Qaeda to own nukes within the united states and use them to defend islam would be upheld by the constitution. That's just moronic.

Also, I had some respect for you. I've lost a lot because you went and backed up a troll in a viceral personal attack against me.

As I said, I'm only pointing out what the law is to what looks to me like the next Ted Kaczynski about to bury himself in a hole and and defend himself against "the man."

This is personal for me, since this is the self image that my friend had of himself, Using his second amendment right to protect himself against the man. He also thought that in quitting "drug" meaning coke and heroin, entering rehab, that he was rejoining lawful society. He thought marijuana didn't count as a drug. He was totally off his rocker, but no more so than what I see posted here. He simply misinterpreted the law and the situation. His killer, as it turned out, would not be found guilty of a crime, in spite of the fact that my friend did not fire his weapon, and was shot many times.

GUN OWNERS TAKE NOTE:

The reality is that it was not that the Crip had a right to bear arms and defend his property. These defenses were thrown out by the court as absurd. My friend's possession of an illegal assault rifle on his person at the time of death was the deciding evidence.

The court ruled that as an armed man, my friend was a threat, and that self defense, shooting him 22 times, was therefore justified. As well as burying his body in the woods, and not notifying the police.

Okay, I'm not saying the guy wasn't stupid, crazy, and asking for it, but in the eyes of the court, the very fact that he was carrying an assault rifle made his life automatically forfeit and of no value.

No second amendment rights were accepted as arguments on either side, as the second amendment did not protect either persons right to carry a firearm.

When the law break in, how you gonna go, shot down on the pavement, or waiting in death row...

KWICKO

Thursday, December 25, 2008 2:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

The idea that an AK47 will protect you against unjust rule is absurd.

Again, I'd submit that there are a fair number of Iraqis, Afghans, and Palestinians who could rather violently disabuse you of that notion. More than a few Irish Catholics, too. And a few million Vietnamese.

Quote:

A rod and gun club could make the case that they were a well ordered militia. You, on crack, holed up with your AK47 and your sawed off shotgun shooting trespassers, are not, and no court of law in the land will uphold that right.

I disagree. SEVERAL courts here in Texas have upheld that right recently. We even have what's called a "Castle Doctrine" that specifically BY LAW allows you to do just that.

Quote:
You're making me think there should be an IQ test to getting a gun...

I'm all for it. Where do I sign up? Will that IQ test be in addition to, or in place of classes for a concealed-carry permit?

Quote:
Merry Christmas to the people who are on this thread that I kinda like, though we might disagree about the interpretation of this law. I'm willing to discuss it in a less psychopath filled environment. Reavers, man.

Merry Xmas to all, whether I like them or not, agree with them or not. We're all just folk now...

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NVGHOSTRIDER

Thursday, December 25, 2008 3:19 AM

Wow. Troll. Strange. I've been here nearly as long as you and post regularly with little static towards much of anyone. Kinda honored.

I am not offended by the term "Indian" and have posted that in previous related threads. Of course, you cannot be responsible to read every single thread.

The idea of roaming assault weapon laden gangs terrorizing schools seems to be an issue in your heart. If America works so well, then where are your police. As I understand it, schools are state property and are protected under state and federal law as are the children.

It also seems there was no reiteration to your misquote waa waa. Oh well. I even offered apologies and again you fly with the personal attacks and name calling. I guess my assumption that you would strive for a more adult conversation were wrong. Trust me, my widdle feelers are hurt.

So as for feeding trolls here, I keep hearing some little voice in the back of my skull whispering something about pots and kettles and the color black...

So my view may be alittle harsh for some. Historically it is a viable future for America as it has happened in the past. But there are still many people who believe the Democratic process will save them. Guess what, the people perputrating these heinous gun crimes aren't exactly the people placing votes against your candidate or party. The people you are electing are not protecting all those people in need of saving. And the parties work with eachother when personal and party gain are in their best interest.

When we stop seeing ourselves as the people and choose to be protected rather than protect ourselves we stop becoming citizens and become subjects.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The country is making a big mistake not teaching kids to cook and raise a garden and build fires.
-Loretta Lynn

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, December 25, 2008 3:23 AM

Kwicko

Quote:
Again, I'd submit that there are a fair number of Iraqis, Afghans, and Palestinians who could rather violently disabuse you of that notion. More than a few Irish Catholics, too. And a few million Vietnamese.

Thank you for making my point for me. All of which we refered to as armies and militias, and were equiped with far more than guns, they had artillery, anti aircraft, grenades, rpgs, etc. IOW, they had roughly equivalent weaponry, and they were a militia.

There is no Rambo story here taking place on American soil, that's what's being proposed by some folks on this thread. That we gotta let crazies and guns kill our children because, hey, I'm Rambo, and I can defeat the US Marines. That's beyond absurd, it does a disservice to the nation.

Quote:
SEVERAL courts here in Texas have upheld that right recently. We even have what's called a "Castle Doctrine" that specifically BY LAW allows you to do just that.

Texas is a special case. In NY, if you tried that, they'd lock you up and throw away the key. I'd do it myself. That's nuts. Doesn't mean I'm anti-gun or anti-second amendment or pro gun control. I don't like the govt. in control of anything. All they would do is give everything to themselves. It's just saying I'm anti homocidal maniacs with guns killing people.

Here's a little side story of gun control abuse of power: The local university has a no gun policy, and they have armed security. Security regularly rapes students, raids their rooms, and confiscates everything from computers to widescreen tvs, to mini fridges and microwaves on supposed "drug raids." That's the kind of abuse that gun control would create.

I'm saying equal weaponry is the only defense. If no one has any guns, that's fair. If everyone has RPGs, that's fair. If the other side has the stealth bomber and you have an AK47, you're fucked.

Quote:
Quote:
You're making me think there should be an IQ test to getting a gun...

I'm all for it. Where do I sign up? Will that IQ test be in addition to, or in place of classes for a concealed-carry permit?

Lol. That was me feeding the troll. I don't have a problem with smart people with guns. I think that dumb people with guns is an issue. Look at the homocide statistics, and then look at the serial killer statistics, watch some interviews with some serial killers, you'll definitely see my point on this.

Actually, I see no issue with most of the pro-gun people on this forum having guns. It's the failure to understand the principle of the 2nd amendment that bugs me. I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I'm also not a moron. It's totally obvious what was intended, which was not a free for all with gun toting lunatics shooting up schools and shopping malls, etc.

A lot of you may not live in a relatively peaceful rural community where a nearby large urban center is exporting gang warfare to your community. I do.
Now, the argument that people have a constitutional right to carry assault rifles, which have one purpose, killing people, and come up use them against locals, trade guns and drugs to locals, well, it disturbs my social order to the point where people are now dying and there have been a few.

I'm a fan of the sarah connor chronicles. I think that should tell you something about where I'm coming from, if the non-fans can hold the snide comments. When the family of "about to die" folk brings out their gun and says "we got it to be prepared for moments like this" and Cameron says "That doesn't prepare you for moments like this." That's what I mean. Terminator comes to your door, have fun with your Glock. And meanwhile, have some peace of mind in knowing that 20,000 psychopaths are roaming the streets of our cities high on whatever they can find, fried to the gills, and shooting at anything that moves.

Did I tell you I was recently shot at by some woman on crack? She had an assault rifle, and a crack house, I know this because the police came and told me, and she was shooting at everything that moves. That was a block from O

OUT2THEBLACK

Thursday, December 25, 2008 4:14 AM

You tend to go on and On...

Which wouldn't be so bad if you were making any sense...

Oddly , you and I agree about a great many things...

Just not This thing...

There was a great prior thread on this subject , but you seem to have been absent for that one...

Study on it for a while :

http://www.fireflyfan.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=34840

You want to claim some History on your side , Founder's intentions and all , see what some Folk brought to that conversation...

...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

NVGHOSTRIDER

Thursday, December 25, 2008 4:46 AM

Well, my points were aired. There is no exchanging true idaes with some folk without having to endure self righteous passive aggressive pussy rhetoric.

And I hate to tell ya bud but the small percentage of criminals classified as serial killers have high average to high IQ's. To lump them in with common criminals dumb enough to get caught is a moot argument and should be recognized as so.

As for whatever you are trying to say in your posts, do you have an agenda? I keep seeing loops and circles and it's making me dizzy. Not because I am dumb as you keep insinuating, but because you have no clear agenda. Obviously trolling is a misdirected term and maybe you should search your Thesaurus for an applicable synonym (words that mean the same thing).

We've definately gone way off track from the original discussion. Feeding into the inadequcies of others in the hopes of airing a better understanding is sometimes a pointless effort. I may have been willing to listen to some of the better points of your posts but those things were cheapened by infintile posturing better suited for the sandbox at the local park.

I'm out for the night. Gone to finish work and dream of better tommorrows filled with laughter and happines.

Hopefully that will boost the ego you are so comfortably stoking in public.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The country is making a big mistake not teaching kids to cook and raise a garden and build fires.
-Loretta Lynn

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, December 25, 2008 5:32 AM

Out2theBlack

Sorry if I rant. I try to hold it down. There was an awful lot hurled at me. I needed to make my position clear. "These things, never helpful"

I don't have time to read this thread tonight. I skimmed it, and saw a lot of people making my basic point.

Obviously I'm familiar with the documents, and think quite clearly that they support my case. The do not support personal gun ownership for individual use. They support popular collective defense on an equal footing with any threat.

It is worth bearing in mind that the south had that and it still did not do them any good. And, I would add, that the civil war was openly about the proposed partitioning of the western states which was for the sole purpose of making a permanent republican majority in the senate, to silence the south, and marginalize it, and slavery was the wedge issue of the day. Slavery itself died for financial reasons: It was cheaper and more profitable to pay wages to workers who then had to buy their support on credit, borrow, and pay back to the same crowd of masters than it was to provide those services even at a paltry level.

But still, it did not protect the South which saw the original confederation of allied states degenerate into an empire where the president and his cabinet with king and court. Not siding with the South here, just saying that they had a valid case of unjust rule, and even equal arms could not protect them against it. Given that, the whole issue requires more gnawing over.

I'm sure history is on my side, because I've studied a great deal of it, but there has been a strong history of personal gun ownership in this country, much of which has ended badly, but a century or more ago might have enabled one to defend ones home. Now that is a futile fantasy.

Quote:

You tend to go on and On...

Which wouldn't be so bad if you were making any sense...

I'm trying to be reasonable here. There needs to be a policy by which the people can defend themselves rather than slaughter each other. At the moment, almost no one is defending themselves. I read very few "shot the intruder" stories, and many more "shot by the intruder" "shot by the cops" and many many more "shot in gang related violence."

Your 2nd amendment interpretation has run amok, and has become a hazard to the ordinary citizen. I would ask you to reconsider the initial words and intentions in this light and try to find a logical and organized solution that would enable you a real defense again your own govt, the Crips and Bloods and Al Qaeda. If you can do that, then you have the start of a plan.

If you dig a hole in the ground and fill it with
ammo, the ATF with smoke you out.

Quote:
Oddly , you and I agree about a great many things...

Just not This thing...

It's why I bothered to respond. I have no idea who this guy nvghostrider is, and now I have no desire to know. He managed to go full on assault and then do so on behalf of his wife. I was complementing a good line, I think it is a good line, the Snyder line from the creepy Puppetshow ep. if I recall, could be wrong. Buffy, anyway.

I think a 9mm would not protect me. I'd prefer to have Cameron protecting me. That's a machine I'd like to get my hands on :)

But seriously, since we haven't talked, I should say I'm a devout Taoist, and believe in live and let live. I'm not, however, a flower child. I have been in some scary situations, been hunted by heavily armed militias, and many times come upon people with guns, including those who intended me harm. On one occassion stared down a guy who held a loaded Uzi aimed at me for 9 hours. We didn't speak a word of each others language, but I convinced him to let me go. If I had had a gun, I think the confrontation would have been a lot shorter.

If anyone else has stared a man in the eye who had a loaded machine gun pointed at their head with his finger on the trigger, for hours on end, then did you flinch? I didn't. If your didn't either, and you want to discuss and defend that man's right to carry an auto

OUT2THEBLACK

Thursday, December 25, 2008 7:24 AM

You'll have to go on more than 'gut feelings' , when it comes to fellow Browncoats...

You're wrong about NVGhostrider...He's a way mellow dude , and much smarter than you can imagine...
Like most of us , he just wants to go his way...

It's not your business to stand in a man's way...It's not "the Government's" 'business' , either...

Can't say that I blame NVG for unloading the coach gun on you...You really deserved both barrels...

You might want to reconsider takin' potshots at Folk you don't know...

Here's a Fun read that Frem has mentioned before , which I also recommend...

It's very thought-provoking , supportive of individual Rights , self-determination , even self-government...

Plus , Individual self-defense...

I sure hope that it gets made into a film that would be worthy of the graphic novel :

http://www.bigheadpress.com/tpbtgn

Once you click the title page , you can just keep clickin' and readin' , 'til you get it done...

It's even possible to leave it and come back to where you left off before...

CHRISMOORHEAD

Thursday, December 25, 2008 7:46 AM

Just wanted to stop in real quick and say that this:

Quote:
Thank you for making my point for me. All of which we refered to as armies and militias, and were equiped with far more than guns, they had artillery, anti aircraft, grenades, rpgs, etc. IOW, they had roughly equivalent weaponry, and they were a militia.

Is totally untrue. The Easter Uprising of 1916 was comprised entirely of men with rifles and only rudimentary explosives.

The Iraqi Army under Saddam had tanks and the whole deal and did not cause use anywhere near as many casualties as our current, prolonged engagement with guerrillas.

To underestimate the effectiveness of guerrilla warfare is to repeat a mistake that's lead many a strong nation to defeat. I'm open to hearing you opinions on the matter, but I'd advise against arguing this particular point on the matter. Military historians, armed forces themselves and any decent "Armchair General" knows better.

To elaborate a bit, the use of militias would actually be more effective in the United States than anywhere else. The land is massive with an eclectic geography, obstruction of military logistics would be easy and the sheer number of buildings and their size in which to take refuge would be type of urban warfare as yet unseen by the world. However, none of it would mean a lick without men pulling triggers to utilize it.

I personally think the government has already gone too far with many things and should be severely reformed. But I also think we're too forgone for that to be a plausible reality. I also know, the one thing every government in the history of mankind has had in common is that it failed eventually. I don't know if it will happen in my lifetime, or even in the next 100 years, but I WILL be prepared for it, and on a personal level, I HOPE it happens as soon as tomorrow.

As far as some of the other stuff you've been saying, I actually very much sympathize with you. I hate the image that the "lowest tier" of gun owners give the rest of us. I think that the reason some people are so vehemently against gun ownership is because they conjure up images of that very lowest tier when they think about gun owners; beer swilling, toothless backwater inbreeds who don't know any other way to solve a dispute. What seems to be a huge issue is how we would decide who and who can't have a firearm. I don't know how serious you were about the IQ test thing, but I'd say in practice it wouldn't be as effective as people hope. You mentioned the statistic at some point of how many gun owners shoot themselves on accident, and I'm willing to bet a good number of them were white collar, upper middle class intellectuals who bought one out of fear because of where they work or something but don't know crap about how to us them. And therein, in my opinion, lies the fundamental problem.

NVG is a good dude, and intelligent to boot. That quote he has at the bottom of his messages about children learning to build fires, cook, etc. I think that could be applied to firearms. I saw the movie Bowling For Columbine a long time ago expecting it to be a liberal bitch-fest, and I expected that because of what all the conservatives I knew were saying about it. Then I saw a movie and realized none of those idiots ever watched it. Micheal Moore, whatever shortcomings he may have, has a point about American culture worshiping violence for entertainment. What makes that hazardous, I think, is not EDUCATING them about it. No problem has ever been solved by ignoring it, it is education and learning that overcomes ignorance.

I've been in Iraq for about 3 months now. In a country where every household is allowed to have one fully automatic rifle, murder between citizens is almost never performed with these weapons, instead being carried out by suicide bombing. These people worship violence as well, albeit in a different way, and choose not to use weapons that they have free access to. It's because that's what they've been taught, it's part of their culture. The problem in the

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, December 25, 2008 6:30 PM

Quote:
You're wrong about NVGhostrider...He's a way mellow dude , and much smarter than you can imagine...

Dubious. Proof of the pudding...
There was nothing mellow in his approach to me.

Quote:
It's not your business to stand in a man's way...It's not "the Government's" 'business' , either...

Not standing in his way. If someone is being unrealistic, like "obama is a nazi infiltrator" or "i can cure cancer with electric shock therapy" I'm going to call them on it.

Quote:
Can't say that I blame NVG for unloading the coach gun on you...You really deserved both barrels...

I really didn't. It came out of nowhere. I thought the approach was moronic. I try not to say things like that, but he was out of line. His double barrel was going off on me for correcting the Buffy quote. It's a good line, and it should be quoted, but correctly. I actually knew the line, but anyone can use the google.

Quote:
You might want to reconsider takin' potshots at Folk you don't know...

No potshots taken. Or intended. I intend to ignore people I don't know, and those who attack me even.

Quote:
http://www.bigheadpress.com/tpbtgn

I'll take a look later. Do me a small favor and repost this in the thread for links. Create one, and call it "Text links" or something easily identifiable, to go with my "Video Clips" It's just hell ferreting out this stuff from the din. Especially after it gets buried.

I was misunderstood here. There a lot of Last Stand folks who think they're cap'n Mal or Sarah Connor, but they're not, they're Custer, even if they are indians. If one finds that one is Custer, the proper approach is to self examine and see what in their stance makes people think that they are Custer, and then adjust either their thinking or their presentation, so that they sound more like Mal.

Also, say I were a liberal fellow traveller rather than a conservative enemy of the NWO, which I am, and instead I were some gun-control pusher who believed in the protection of govt. etc. Even if this were true, and I was someone from the other side, stating a position, I would not deserve such treatment. It was totally uncalled for.

Rather I am someone from your side, simply pointing out the irrationality of the arguments and the unrealism of the fantasy being portrayed here. I think this kind of thinking is not the kind of wooly-headed liberal thinking that leads to being eaten, but it is the kind of thinking that leads to Ruby Ridge and Waco.

People need to use their brains, not just their bullets.

Also, as a footnote, I think I'm not about to be cowed by trolls on the internet. From what I have already faced, which goes way passed anything I mention here, I wouldn't be cowed by the NWO, haven't been in fact. Even with guns.

I can't carry a gun, for religious reasons, I'd like to develop a non lethal though. Also, like Book, I have not objection to someone else carrying one. However, I do object to reavers. What I saw in in Hyde park were reavers, but they're just wannabes compared to the real thing. Sierra Leone, Yugoslavia, some parts of Afghanistan, you can meet real reavers. Just for a glimpse, I was in Yugoslavia, during the war. My friend Alesh burried thousands of his comrades, often pieces of them. Ever know what it feels like to be skewered through the chest, through the head, have your face ripped off? And that was literal.

Don't expect me to be fazed by an internet post.

If someone is calm and intelligent, they show it through their words.

But I was not even the guy from the other side. I'm simply pointing to the elephant in the room. I see a collection of Custers with reavers or more likely terminators, at the gate, and they're getting out their .38, and they feel like a man.

Don't assume things about people you don't know. If I peg someone as a troll incorrectly, then my apologies. I'm just pegging people who are acting like trolls. Trolls waste my time. I don't have a lot of time to waste. Hence, I tend to ignore them.

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, December 25, 2008 6:51 PM

ChrisMoorHead

Quote:
Is totally untrue. The Easter Uprising of 1916 was comprised entirely of men with rifles and only rudimentary explosives

Thank you also for making my point for me. The IRA was not a loner in a hole with a sawed off shotgun. They were a well ordered militia with adequate weaponry for the time. If you're ordered enough, then you can have vastly inferior weapons, see the first Zulu War.

Of course, time's change, see the second Zulu War.

While I agree overall with your analysis, i don't know this guy, I react to troll posts as trolls. You should see my first reactions to PN and AU, they were not kind, because they post in a very abrassive troll-like manner, or did. Times Change

Your picutre is missing a key element: Drugs. The indian neighbor who shot himself was a crackhead, as was the sniper who shot at me. The RUF and the Aghan Mujahideen both use a lot of drugs. Iraqis overall, from what Seth tells me, do not. My friend and his killed did. I've had others who have killed themselves on drugs, only two who killed themselves with no drugs. A couple stories of people around me, one guy I know, his wife was killed by his gun, used by an intruder while he slept. That's rare. Accidents, yes there have been a few of those here, cleaning the loaded gun. But most of them are suicides, and more are drug related.

The right to freely choose substance use is another libertarian freedom, if we have it, and we have knowledge, we have little use for doctors. Drugs and guns don't mix. The whole issue becomes complicated.

Your guerilla opponents in Iraq now are a well ordered militia. Remember, in 1776, the US army was a band of guerillas. The reference to the militia was to something less organized than the army. Still, it was a reference to something that probably met some basic requirements: It knew who its members were, and that they were not insane junkies and traitors, or serial killers. It knew where its guns were, who was skilled to use them, and it knew where its ammunition was, that stores were safe and supply was available, and most of all it knew that it was united in a cause.

I see all of this in the IRA, in the Palestinian groups, and in the insurgents you are currently up against. I don't see it in some of the posts on this board. I see lone gunmen, clinging to their weapons for a great last stand.

Oh, for anyone who knows, the Chinese say 2017. I don't know if this is just Chinese superstition, and whether it just applies to them. But it's a reasonable number

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, December 25, 2008 9:07 PM

The reason you don't see it, is cause no one in their right mind would be damn fool enough to admit it on a public forum in what is fast becoming a surveillance society.

And I honestly think that if you wish to continue discussion of the topic you need to do your homework, which means reading the Federalist, and Antifederalist papers concerning the ratification of the Constitution, because most of the folk involved in the formation of those amendments were quite explicitly clear as to what they meant, and this contradicts most of your perceptions about the Second - but again, it's another thing that cannot really be soundbited, and if you think I run on and on, that's nothing compared to our founders, even my beloved Patrick Henry tends to run a bit longer than most folks patience.

Still, if you're going to argue these things, you NEED that background to do so effectively, or you will come across as clueless to anyone who has, sorry, but thems the facts.

And finally, the reason you don't see "chased off by armed citizen" in the news is twofold, firstly that it's just not considered newsworthy by a mainstream media that's fast becoming tabloid trash since there's naught to it, unless they wanna rant on about how evil self-defense is, and secondly, because of that very perception most folk who DO defend themselves with a firearm, no shots fired, are often unwilling to report it due to fear of being arrested themselves or otherwise harrassed, a fear that is unfortunately well-justified in a society that's become a pit of despair in part due to the vilification of self-defense in general, armed or not.

And heaven help if you shots are fired, cause then you're looking down the barrel of $30,000.00+ in legal fees, MINIMUM - no matter how innocent you are.

Ergo, the watchword of folks who do believe in self-defense these days is mums the word, don't ask don't tell, and can you really blame them ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

CHRISMOORHEAD

Thursday, December 25, 2008 9:53 PM

Dreamtrove - I can agree with the impotence of the single man in a hole to change the course of an entire war. Not to say his efforts would be totally useless; if you know what the "Death Funnel" is in relation to Room Clearing Procedures, then you know how deadly a lone gunman can be to a squad.

But you seem to think that the number of people who fit that description is large enough to stress over; I really don't think it is. There are plenty of military and ex military personnel out there who have or are willing to train others. As for those who do make up the former category; it's their life. My father is one of these people, because he's 64 years old an incapable of the physical demands of an effective defense. But he wont live in oppression. I can appreciate that.

Your second point seems to be that any group of even well organized citizens would be overcome by the technological advantage of the government; this is not necessarily the case. I don't know how much you read about the Easter uprising, but the British had artillery, multiple machine guns and modern battle rifles. The Irish had outdated, poorly maintained German battle rifles and a Lewis gun or two. They also tried utilizing trench warfare in areas where it was a death trap to do so. My point here is that they were not as well drilled or competent or even equipped as you seem to think that they were. In the end their battle was lost, but their cause gained notoriety.

The underlying and core point of all of this is that guns are not outdated as your first post said. That is not an opinion; it is military fact. All organized militaries, no matter how technologically advanced, recognize the need for trigger pullers on the ground, in offensive or defensive situations. Technology is combat support, and in many situations nowadays can become a hindrance under the right circumstances. My last duty in Iraq was operating a 360 degree rotating camera on a 75 foot pole that could see well over 10 kilometers in every direction (Called the RAID T or Mobile Eagle Eye). When this thing went down, our dependency on the system became clear, and manpower had to be borrowed from other details to get it back up and running. My M4 never gave me that much trouble, in spite of having an inferior method of gas operation.

Ride down from Asgard to the battlefield,
Bringer of the valiant dead who died but never yielded,
Carry we who die in battle over land and sea,
Across the rainbow bridge to Valhalla,
Odin's waiting for me.

DREAMTROVE

Friday, December 26, 2008 2:52 AM

Quote:
The reason you don't see it, is cause no one in their right mind would be damn fool enough to admit it on a public forum in what is fast becoming a surveillance society.

FREM, I grant that in rural america I do not see it. I see urban drug warfare as an export, but no one is putting up cameras.

I don't think that this touches on my angle on this discussion: The ideas that the lone gunmen are staving off the feds imho is insane. I think all they are doing is drawing attention to themselves. This is never good.

> And I honestly think that if you wish to continue discussion of the topic you need to do your homework,
> which means reading the Federalist, and Antifederalist papers concerning the ratification of the Constitution,

Done that.

> because most of the folk involved in the formation of those amendments were quite explicitly clear as to what they meant,
> and this contradicts most of your perceptions about the Second - but again, it's another thing that cannot really be soundbited,

Wasn't my impression. I don't think they intended loan gun men, I think they intended organized resistance. I think that I said this from the get go, and that every example posted to me so far in an effort to "contradict me" has been an example of organized resistance. None of what I see here is organized resistance. I see a lot of fruitcakes looking for the right to shoot their neighbors. There's a little too much of that. I haven't seen signs that people have an organized resistance

"Even if they did, it wouldn't do any good, they would only come with guns."

The Feds and NWO would come with mini-nukes, or at least enough firepower to make you no longer identifiable as carbon based life forms.

The resistance displayed is quixotic at best. Mostly, it seems to be individualist paranoia. I will grant all points about rights, the need to protect those rights and the threat posed by the NWO to the people, and to their rights. I am not debating any of that.

I am saying that there is a level of unrealism in people's view of this resistance.

Okay, let me take a leap of faith and say that you are indicating that what people post here appears to be a handful of individual gun nuts but is actually a well organized militia which is too smart to admit it. If this were the case, I think it would only put you in more danger, unless you number in the millions, and have a lot of firepower.

Consider this. Iran is afraid of the NWO, and planning a resistance. Here's what Iran has

80,000 navy seals
2 million man standing army
12 million reservists
200-300 fighter planes
A Navy that appears to control the Gulf
Anti aircraft batteries
Comprehensive anti missile system
Access to 120 undisclosed nuclear missiles
Alliances with Russia and China

Okay, and they are mounting a resistance. Anyone who had seriously read the US operations in Iraq and Afghanistan plans would know that we would have won these wars if we wanted to. But stable states would be automatically allied by pressure to Iran, China and Russia, our true opponents in this conflict (look at Maliki. Okay, so, openly, we support him, that's the smart thing to do, to fight the influence. But it's public knowledge that CIA officials have admitted to plans to destablize the region. That's the real objective.)

So, Iran is prepared, what are you guys, realistically. Getting the picture?

> and if you think I run on and on, that's nothing compared to our founders,

lol. true.

> Still, if you're going to argue these things, you NEED that background to do so effectively

I have read them, but differently. I will concede the point that I should re-read, but also, take everything in historical perspective. And compare to today. The founding fathers did not then go around to the native american tribes and start handing out muskets now did they? They were addressing, specifically, the defenders of the revolution. So, if I dig through and find language support individual rights for use of fire arms for their personal defense of property a

OUT2THEBLACK

Friday, December 26, 2008 3:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

...Guns, alone, cannot win a war against the full arsenal of technology. A number of people can. Because of their brains, not their guns.

...I will still hold that the personal firearm was the ultimate weapon of war in a land battle during the revolutionary war, whereas it is a toothpick of war today.

There you go !

Even an analog clock , when stopped , is right TWICE during a day !

The entire point of warfare is to live to fight another day , meanwhile making the enemy pay with his life ,
in the service of his ideals...

In other words , killing people , and breaking their stuff...

You're right...A good sniper with a decent weapon would pick your teeth out , while you stand around attempting to be philosophical...

OUT2THEBLACK

Friday, December 26, 2008 3:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ChrisMoorhead:

Dreamtrove - I can agree with the impotence of the single man in a hole to change the course of an entire war. Not to say his efforts would be totally useless; if you know what the "Death Funnel" is in relation to Room Clearing Procedures, then you know how deadly a lone gunman can be to a squad.

Your second point seems to be that any group of even well organized citizens would be overcome by the technological advantage of the government; this is not necessarily the case.

The underlying and core point of all of this is that guns are not outdated as your first post said. That is not an opinion; it is military fact. All organized militaries, no matter how technologically advanced, recognize the need for trigger pullers on the ground, in offensive or defensive situations.dependency on the system became clear, and manpower had to be borrowed from other details to get it back up and running. My M4 never gave me that much trouble, in spite of having an inferior method of gas operation.

Thanks for your service and professional relevance , Chris .

It's an honor for you to take time to contribute to this discussion .

CHRISMOORHEAD

Friday, December 26, 2008 6:00 AM

Dreamtrove - You and I seem to have a very similar opinion on this matter in the long run. I'm actually almost sure that you, NVG and many other people you've butted heads with on this thread are on the same page. Many of them probably just felt threatened by some of your original posts, construing your pragmatic opinion on the capabilities of a lone gunman to be an attack on gun ownership in general. People get edgy about the subject, and for good reason on both sides honestly.

In any case I can deffinately agree that a lon indevidual holed up in his house would be ineffective, but thhere are other sides to it. The first, I'll reitterate, is the example of my father. Many people would rather die than be moved off of their land, or have any of the rights they enjoy taken away from them for any reason. You may shake your head at them, but for them it's a noble cause, and honestly I agree with them.

Also, if there is a great number of people who do this, no matter how uncoordinated, it would at least have the effect of slowing down an aggresor. Fire in the Hole might be an effective response for tight tunnels with no place to take cover, but for the standard American living quarters with multiple rooms, basements, and clutter inside of them? It'd be a nightmare trying to clear that, and even worse, actually, if you softened the area with artillery and air strikes. Real world experience on my part lands the fact that you never have enough frags or flashbangs when you need them, anyways, so it really would come down to fighting from house to house.

Finally, I appriciate your references and all, but I really see Ireland as a more appropriate reference than the Spears vs. Muzzle Loaders or Revolutionary Hispanics... ooh, how about the Bielski partisans? Hear they're coming out with a movie about them soon...

Ride down from Asgard to the battlefield,
Bringer of the valiant dead who died but never yielded,
Carry we who die in battle over land and sea,
Across the rainbow bridge to Valhalla,
Odin's waiting for me.

DREAMTROVE

Friday, December 26, 2008 7:07 AM

I just came in to post my update, with no intention of commenting, because I expected to see no comments.

I consulted my brother, and he supported your position, so I concede the point. He said the "Volokh school" of thought is technically correct, and that Thomas Jefferson would have supported an AK-47 in every household, but then again, he would have supported a slave in every household as well. He took the basic position of "for those who want to live in the 18th century, this is a good legal basis, if not a practical one, and if you stock up, remember, that's 7.62 x 39 mm.

He added "the storm troopers will come for them... If only."

Of course I'm not making this up. Interpret it as you will. He also noted that this is a constitutional inconsistency among many that is hotly debated in the legal community, to create enough content of legal documents to fill a library on both sides. He expects that this issue will be solved... never. He also did not think that Obama would move to take away guns or institute gun control, that would prompt incidents that the govt. would win, but that would be unpopular for a politician.

Anyway, I concede the constitutional point. Founding father support your idea of shooting your neighbors. While I may think that this is a recipe for chaos, I am constitutionally in the wrong. I think I made some valid arguments, but I concede the overall issue. As I said, my brother is an expert on the topic, and not pro-gun himself, but he agrees with the board that the founding fathers support your position.

I still hold that in the 20th century, this is an unrealistic means of defense, from a logistical standpoint.

Since people have posted since my last post, which I wasn't expecting, I will point something out about communication. Out2theBlack, while I agree we agree on many things, you managed to belittle, insult, and threaten me in your last post. While as I said before, I am virtually impossible to faze, it is sure to change my opinion of your future posts. Think of it as opening fire in a ricochet chamber. Contrast that with the civil post of ChrisMoodHead which followed. Obviously, communication is a skill, with friends, which we all are here, as well as with enemies and strangers. In this case I was wrong, some people chose to disagree with me, others decided to be just plain hostile. I was not completely wrong. My point about it being a dated idea seems valid, but I freely conceded the constitutional issue.

out2theblack, I don't hold it against you, but not well thought out hostility does dig a hole that will be difficult to bury out of. Consider, and reconsider. Your invictives and support for the hostile posts of others, as well as deserting well reasoned argument in favor of old fashion flaming was a poor choice. I recall our discussions from other threads, and so I'm willing to overlook it, but keep it in mind.

NVG. Some respect you, no idea why. Your posts are beneath anything here. It seems you hurl insults in the absence of experience. If there's more to you, let it show. I do give people a second chance, it's how I know a great many people. Do yourself a favor, and read the language of your own posts. Imagine someone posted them to you, and then see how you feel about that person. Bear in mind they have no effect on me, other than how I view the merit of your words, but still, it would be instructive.

Chris

I think we already dealt with the Bielski issue. Obviously disarming the public in order to exterminate them or for any reason, is wrong.

In all things, I'm pretty objective. The Ireland issue is a close one to me. Many of my ancestors care from Ireland, fleeing on boats as they were being rounded up for the slaughter for by William and Mary. But objectively, it's not an absurd balance of power issue, it's more like the American Revolution. In either case, I would expect them to win. I think that Iraq represents a more radical imbalance of power, and I think they won by default. Against Saddam, we won, but against Al Sadr, we didn't, and shoul

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, December 26, 2008 8:31 AM

Done told you I've no intention to be nice.

And be damned if imma respond kindly to folks who wanna keep their rights while handing mine over, as if that don't screw us both, just cause they're annoyed, offended, or afraid of how I use them - I know where that goes, and so do you, so let's not pretend we we're not very well aware what lies down THAT road, ok ?

To be blunt, fuck that - frankly, what raises most people's ire about someone like me being armed is the plain and simple fact that as long as I am, they cannot force their will on me so easily.

They might not ADMIT that, but like I said, I have a pretty good bullshit detector.

As for the rest of it, hell no, a single handgun ain't gonna make that damn much difference, but collectives of skilled people who understand and can effectively practice 4GW warfare are a very realistic response to such things, which is all imma say on that.

The second amendment is a tripwire, it's there to let folks know when the Gov has overstepped itself, and to let it fall invites a domino effect once the threat of armed citizenry is fully neutralised.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, December 26, 2008 10:54 AM

As a second thought, I'll add this handy link as a partial explaination.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DyingLikeAnimals

One of my many inspirations was noteable trickster Reynard the Fox, if you take my meaning...
Why do I need to round up what they will unknowingly hand me on a plate to use against them ?

-F

DREAMTROVE

Friday, December 26, 2008 3:32 PM

Frem

Quote:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DyingLikeAnimals]

Nice link. I didn't fit any of them. I guess I'll have to add my own, maybe a Raccoon. "Let's approach this problem with caution, it's tricky, and with discretion, because *they* are listening"

I invite everyone to go and read Frem's list.

(Folks might peg me as a reindeer, but I have no interest in changing the other heroes, only in approaching the issue with caution, making sure the other heroes do not fall into obvious traps)

Everyone, follow Frem's link, find yourself, and recognize that it will derogatory and insulting, but that there is a grain of truth in it.

Myself. Probably more of a Fox. Definitely not a Reindeer. I would let the boat sink. Not out to change anyone, not there to restrict anyone's freedom, just interjecting to try quixotically to prevent the Boars from sacrificing themselves.

Many of you may find yourselves Wolves, but please read the entire entry, and you will see why I express concern to the Wolf.

Ultimately, all of these are negative stereotypes, but with a touch of truth, feel free to create your own animal archetype, but recognize the negative, and accept it, be self critical and honest.

Quote:
Done told you I've no intention to be nice.
[quote/]

The Jayne Cobbs and Cap'n Mals of the world I can handle. The Niska's can get on my nerves. Attacking your allies will not get you far.

Quote:
And be damned if imma respond kindly to folks who wanna keep their rights while handing mine over

I was not at any point taking your rights. I only question the tactic "every man for himself." Even Wolves travel in packs.

Also, I was pointing out the reaver issue. Few seemed to catch on to this: This is a strong running theme in the show. Freedom is essential, but it potentially creates reavers. The Crips and Bloods are Reavers. I can tell stories. This is not race relates, half the ones up here are white. Reavers are reavers, and our local reavers they love assault rifles. Handy for killing lots of people especially if you don't care who you like. To see pure reavers, check out the RUF. It's worth looking up for those who don't know them. The RUF in America is just starting, my prediction is that this is going to be big in our new socio-economic collapse, your judgement day.

Quote:
They might not ADMIT that, but like I said, I have a pretty good bullshit detector.

No Bull, I was wrong, and admitted freely when proven wrong, there's a difference between that and Bull. The Bull is manipulative, and attempting to disuade.

Quote:
As for the rest of it, hell no, a single handgun ain't gonna make that damn much difference, but collectives of skilled people who understand and can effectively practice 4GW warfare are a very realistic response to such things, which is all imma say on that.

I agree, that's pretty much what I was arguing for. I can't argue for war, but I can say that this is not what the people arguing against me most vociferously were suggesting. They were the Lone Wolf crowd.

I had to google 4GW. This is the sort of thing I *want* to see here. Constructive arguments towards directions of mutual benefit. Now you've done it twice in a row.

Hats off to you, Frem, and I mean that with no implied sarcasm or insincerity, informative posts!

For anyone else ignorant of this as I was:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_generation_warfare

Quote:
The second amendment is a tripwire, it's there to let folks know when the Gov has overstepped itself, and to let it fall invites a domino effect once the threat of armed citizenry is fully neutralised.

My brother the Fox said specifically about this question a footnote which I did not pass on before, because I thought it might offend, but if people can take it, from an expert on the subject:

"The Second Amendment is like the Templars -- a touchstone of craziness, regardless of which side the ranter is foaming on."

I guess that pretty much sums it up, so I must have some Fox bloo

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

HERO

Friday, December 26, 2008 4:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AG05:
I disagree. Guns are most certainly not obselete

I think we can compromise and agree that some guns are obselete and some are not. For example, black powder rifles are obselete... http://hunting.about.com/od/blackpowder/ht/htloadbprifle.htm

Semi-automatic assault weapons with large capacity magazines are very practicle... http://www.ar15.com/

As a lawyer I plan to rely first on the law to protect me. If a bad guy breaks into my house intent on raping my dog and killing my girlfriend then I plan to hit them over the head with Title 29 of the Ohio Revised Code. Should that prove ineffective then I will (with great regret) shoot them with one (or more) of the variety of large large handguns at my disposal.

H

PIRATENEWS

Friday, December 26, 2008 6:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Guns are obsolete. Having them will not protect you.

Notice the person who said that Obama would try to take your guns away was not opponent John McCain or arch-rival Hillary Clinton, it was his own running mate Joe Biden.

I think the boys at CFR like gun ownership, they like to lend a hand to civil war. If you had a satelite system, they'd be worried.

Perhaps Sonic Nausea is more your weapon of choice? Police advertise this product to "disrupt public meetings".

Quote:

ShomerTec Law Enforcement Equipment
$29.95

Sonic Nausea is a small electronic device which can really turn one's stomach. It generates a unique combination of ultra-high frequency soundwaves which soon leads most in its vicinity to queasiness. It can also cause headaches, intense irritation, sweating, imbalance, nausea, or even vomiting. Hiding this device in your inconsiderate neighbor's house might put an end to their late-night parties. The abusive bureaucrat's office, the executive lunchroom... the possibilities are endless for that small portion of inventive payback. The unique soundwave characteristics make directional source determination difficult. Powered by one 9-volt battery (not included). For extended run time six AA batteries in a battery pack with transistor clips (available from most electronics stores) can be used instead. Use with extreme discretion.

www.shomer-tec.com/product/sonic-nausea-266.cfm

Super Sonic Nausea

This "industrial strength version of the Sonic Nausea is now available for non government sales for the first time. It provides serious substantial capability to disrupt and disperse gatherings. Speeches, demonstrations, crowd dynamics...this device has been used to influence more of these in recent years than you might suspect. Or if planted near the podium you might just have a case of a speaker with diminished clarity and concentration, or perhaps is even unable to complete his presentation "due to liness". This "illness" might even be contagious, as some of the VIPS up there with him also seemed to have caught the same bug. Powered by ten AA batteries (not included). Size: 7 3/4 x 4 1/2" x 2 3/4". Use only with extreme discretion.

www.telstarone.com/cs_new_ssn.htm

Perhaps you'd prefer your own homebrew DIY deathray gun, as countermeasure to the cops microwave cannon? Very useful if you have a wooden door...

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/31658

Quote:

"A maser operates in the microwave frequency at 300 GHz. A commercial microwave oven has a power rating of 5,000 watts. I have ignited a 4x8 sheet of plywood, from 500 feet using a 5,000 watt maser for only 30 seconds."
-David Gunn, The Poor Man's Ray Gun

www.amazon.com/Poor-Mans-Ray-David-Gunn/dp/0879471557

Microwave sound cannon at RepubliConCon USSA
http://www.infowars.com/print/ps/soundcannon1.htm

www.zemos98.org/controlsonoro/2008/03/11/prototype-sound-cannon/

Navy Researching Vomit Beam
www.zemos98.org/controlsonoro/2008/03/11/prototype-sound-cannon/

US military's heat-ray gun, the Active Denial System
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6300985.stm
www.newscientist.com/article/dn14250?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news6_head_dn
14250

Note that in the military microwave cannons are built exactly like satellite TV dishes, same size as the old big dishes. So combine Ragnar's homebrew with an old TV dish and stepper controller to aim it...

Do you think cops would run if attacked by ghosts of Ball Lightning, like The Invisible Monster in Johnny Quest?
VIDEO: www.

DREAMTROVE

Friday, December 26, 2008 7:27 PM

I'm sure we can, and with time, we can agree to more. But once again, sorry to spark a firefight of friendly fire. I just thought there were some who were going all "last stand against the big bad." Even if I'm wrong constitutionally, I still think it's a bad move, but it's reduced to my personal opinion. When the storm troopers come in, they are going to bring a lot more than guns. Everyone check out the waco story. oh damn, now I have to find the link. It's on youtube, how wes and co filled the basement with flamable chemical weapons and then fired down. Right now I'm really pressed for time.

DREAMTROVE

Friday, December 26, 2008 7:27 PM

I'm a double post, let me be.

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, December 27, 2008 2:20 AM

Nah, it wasn't you specifically that I was accusing of hoping to declaw folks like me so that their "benevolent" Gov can "manage" us easier, but there's a couple round here who I do indeed suspect of such.

On an earlier posts note (one I missed the first time through) I don't admit to anything unless I feel it required to get a point across or that I have experience with the issue I speak of, and even then will be as vague as possible, for obvious reasons - I been doin what I do for a very long time, long enough to have entrenched defenses that pre-date most recent efforts to keep tabs on us, and were in place and active long before database dragnets and the like, givin my people an edge that more modern collectives simply do not have.

One specific instance of such would be "poisoning the well" by adding so many falsified listings that no one can ever be sure whatever data they have is accurate, something far more difficult today than it was then since the databases demand so much more verification to "prevent identity theft" which they then sell to anyone with a vendors license, abetting and accellerating the very crime they pretend to be protecting you against, what a neat scam that is, eh ?

We poisoned those wells long before the alphabet goons started drinking from them, and other defense methodologies were in place and hardened before the technologies useful against them were even past the concept stage - both passive and active, FYI, those sonic and pain beams have serious exploitable weaknesses, a little understanding of that tech goes a long way.

And it's not my potential allies I am attacking, the folks who would take insult from a commentary like that, are the zealots that reason and logic would be wasted on to begin with, and any attempt to negotiate with would just hand ground I've no intent on losing - that's just like the folk who spout "reasonable restrictions" in public, and then admit privately that every one of those "reasonable restrictions" is one step closer to their ACTUAL goal of full-on disarmament.

I will not negotiate the right to bear arms with those people any more than I would negotiate the civil rights of minorities with the Klan cause it's just a waste of time - although I will insult their ignorant stupidity given *happens* to such quisling milquetoast collaborators in the end no matter which side eventually wins, just ask some of our people who volunteered to get involved in messy stuff like that, if you can find any still alive.

The only use I got for Snakes and Jackals is fodder to manipulate against their own, and even that would never be from this identity regardless.

Anyhows, we been workin the 4GW angle since before there was even a name for it, and you'll note that I do say "we" - a well knit group is far better functionally than a single person who may be skilled in one area, lacking in others, and has to sleep sometime.
Having solid allies can flatten the curves of an effective movement rather nicely - although it's hard to balance useful suggestions versus what should not be said publicly...
Let's just say that the ability to buy off stop-losses into discharges has benefitted us greatly in recent years, meh.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NVGHOSTRIDER

Saturday, December 27, 2008 2:41 PM

I have apologized, almost profusely on my seemingly rabid attack on previous posts of you and your posts. But I actually agree with many of your posts and the mentality behind them. I do not want to see the proliferation of religious zealot thought process upon the US. I want Americans to have a chance to choose their religious and intellectual ways of finding common ground as initially intended by our founders. But those ideals are significantly warped and corrupted throughout both by the media, and political means of our day. Take the personal account of the men directly involved, the people witnessing, and the ''black hoods" before them as some sort of indication behind the truth of what you are told.

Not of what you see is truth. Not that can be heard is truth. Our feelings can be manipulated. When we feel less than safe.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The country is making a big mistake not teaching kids to cook and raise a garden and build fires.
-Loretta Lynn

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, December 27, 2008 8:54 PM

Frem,

If I may, don't take this as an attack, it's a sincere suggestion, and I say this only as a friend.

1. A couple of recommendation, sincere, one is elements of style by strunk and white, and the other is how to win friends and influence people by dale carnegie. These are two excellent texts on communication skills.

It should not be an uphill battle for me to unravel what you have just said. It should be easy and painless, and everything perfectly clear.

I still don't know what you do, and I am more apt to assume that you are a poseur than the American Mujahideen. But if I were inclined to feel the other way, you would be setting up red flags all over the place.

As I've said before, email me personally, if you feel it can't be said on the board.

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, December 27, 2008 9:08 PM

NVG,

Apology accepted. I would say that if this was the intent, it failed to reach the audience with clarity, among the venom. But it's clear now. I would make the same reading recommendations I just made to Frem, see above. This is serious straight talk in communications, and effective.

My personal concern is not with religious zealots. I think they have their place and their rights. I was citing Waco as "Govt. out of control." I'm sure you would find Taoism far more similar to native american beliefs, I don't know if you ascribe to them, but there is a strong element of live and let live, and forces of nature trumping forces of man.

My main concern was that I have known more than one "Last stand"'er who thought that "me and my gun to protect me" was a realistic defense of their rights. Realistically, it's a red flag to the feds saying "kill me now, I'm a threat." My main concern was that people are gearing up for a battle here that they are guaranteed to lose. Or, to be more terse, the charge of the light sabre brigade. Or to be more on target, I see Serenity Valley in the future for this crowd.

If I were to argue the point on the founding father, I would be forced to concede the position, but would still point out that this was the 18th century. I'm sure that Jefferson was not about to go handing out guns to slaves and native american tribes. He probably wouldn't've been too keen on the idea of, "Immigrant welcome to America, here's your gun." If I'm wrong on any of these, feel free to correct me.

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, December 28, 2008 1:25 AM

DT, take it how you like, but I am not going to mess with a style of communicating that is extremely effective at the people I wish to reach just because someone on the internet says I should.

As for strunk and white, I suspect you're not quite on board with the fact that telling an Anarchist there's "only one right way" annoys the everliving hell out of them, besides which if that *was* the only right way, not one of the published authors I read would have a career.

And don't even get me started on that bastard Carnegie, the sins of his father are legion and his own no less, but that's a whole other topic.

His *REAL* method of "communication" and "influence" was the money spent on hired goons to enforce their will, like his father did at Ludlow and Homestead, so you could simply dismiss the crap in the book and retitle it -
"Being Rich and Immoral, the key to making friends and influencing people."

You're also seemingly clueless about the nature of the discussion you desire - either you discuss it in a cryptic and elliptical fashion, or you do not discuss it at all in a public forum, you're sitting there asking dangerous questions and all the while telling folk they don't dare answer, and then being annoyed when they react in a very predictable fashion to that conundrum, and how ridiculous is that ?

I've told you as much as you really need to know, you're a smart guy, you figure it out - cause askin me to spell it out means you're either applying a setup, or as dimwittedly self-destructive as the very folk you're flaming.

Neither one of those makes the idea of you as an ally appealing, frankly, and so I've nothing further to say on the topic at this time.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

OUT2THEBLACK

Sunday, December 28, 2008 2:51 AM

For them as need it told , from the Independent Institute:

http://www.secondamendmentbook.com/

The Founders’ Second Amendment soars to #1 category ranking at Amazon.com in Law, Civil Rights and Liberties, Constitutions, Constitutional Law, Constitutional History, and Revolutionary and Founding History, as well as #12 in History, #11 in Professional and Technical, and #24 in Nonfiction (December 15).

"...As you know, the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2008 landmark District of Columbia v. Heller ruling finally affirmed that the Founders fully intended the Second Amendment to protect an individual right to own and bear arms. The renowned Second Amendment scholar and lawyer Dr. Stephen P. Halbrook, Research Fellow at The Independent Institute, was key to the Heller victory—as well as to three previous gun-rights victories in cases before the Supreme Court. And his definitive defense of the Second Amendment is now available in The Founders’ Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms ;
the first in-depth, book-length account of the origins of the Second Amendment and the most readable, comprehensive, and compelling work ever assembled arguing that the right to own a gun is as fundamental under the U.S. Constitution as is freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Yet, even before the ink was dry on the Heller decision, efforts were underway in Washington, D.C., to resume the assault against gun rights. Further, and despite the rhetoric, both President-elect Barack Obama and his choice for Attorney General, Eric Holder, have repeatedly opposed Second Amendment rights, and any new federal judge appointments will likely be similarly biased.

Thus, preserving our constitutional rights will hinge on our ability to educate the American people on the imperative of Second Amendment rights. The Supreme Court’s Heller decision has provided us with an unprecedented opportunity to do this."

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, December 28, 2008 2:55 AM

Quote:
DT, take it how you like, but I am not going to mess with a style of communicating that is extremely effective at the people I wish to reach just because someone on the internet says I should.

Your loss.

Quote:
As for strunk and white, I suspect you're not quite on board with the fact that telling an Anarchist there's "only one right way" annoys the everliving hell out of them, besides which if that *was* the only right way, not one of the published authors I read would have a career.

Have you even read it?

Quote:
And don't even get me started on that bastard Carnegie, the sins of his father are legion and his own no less, but that's a whole other topic.

James William Carnegie, the midwestern farmer? His sins must have been legion. I think you've made the mistake of assuming that Dale Carnegie is any relation to Andrew Carnegie. He is not. Never make assumptions, especially on the internet. I already knew this one, but anyone, including you, could have checked it in five seconds.

Quote:
His *REAL* method of "communication" and "influence" was the money spent on hired goons to enforce their will, like his father did at Ludlow and Homestead, so you could simply dismiss the crap in the book and retitle it - "Being Rich and Immoral, the key to making friends and influencing people."

Um, see above. No relation. Carnegie's story is an interesting one. He got his start hopping trains as just the sort of character that this new society would never allow. Do your homework before ranting.

Quote:
You're also seemingly clueless about the nature of the discussion you desire - either you discuss it in a cryptic and elliptical fashion, or you do not discuss it at all in a public forum, you're sitting there asking dangerous questions and all the while telling folk they don't dare answer, and then being annoyed when they react in a very predictable fashion to that conundrum, and how ridiculous is that ?

I'm sorry. I thought we had something in common. My mistake. You help runaways and abused children, so have I, we oppose gansta govt. The only form of communication I ever wanted was one on the level. You, sir, are not on the level. You talk in circles and vague ambiguities, and make yourself out to be an underworld spy with some sort of cache. I suspect it's a cover for a used car dealership. Myself, I really do grow tomatoes.

Quote:
I've told you as much as you really need to know, you're a smart guy, you figure it out - cause askin me to spell it out means you're either applying a setup, or as dimwittedly self-destructive as the very folk you're flaming.

Where your clues lead me is nowhere you would want to be found. I was looking for some clue that your circuit was something more akin to the underground railroad than to human trafficking. So, I have a brain, no information to discount it, and I came to the conclusion.

Quote:
Neither one of those makes the idea of you as an ally appealing, frankly, and so I've nothing further to say on the topic at this time.

Well, I guess there's only one other possibility. I am thinking at this point that you are not the sharpest tool in the shed, and not a potential ally. Overplaying your little game in a public forum, posting a picture, and then leading me to think that you are running a penny ante human trafficking ring is just icing on the cake. Not knowing who Dale Carnegie was is just dumb. It's the dumbest thing posted since 2004, when Hero posted that "Nothing was further from a western style economy than Japan prior to WWI" Okay, no offense Hero, but that's still the dumbest thing ever posted to this forum.

I'm really a pretty sharp guy, and I analyzed the data given. You've already admitted to breaking the law, repeatedly, and if there is no proof that it's for some sort of altruistic reasons, then I have to assume the opposite. Myself, when I sheltered runaways, I contacted the state and local police myself, often daily. After a couple years, my state police contact said after one of th

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, December 28, 2008 2:59 AM

Out2theBlack

Was awaiting acknowledgement of my concession and apology. Also, any thoughts you had on random reavers vs. organized resistance.

An argument for one side doesn't win the point, esp. if my main point was that this was an outdates concept of "arms" if you wanted real defense. But still, I wanted to clear the air, just so I know that we're cool, and can move on.

OUT2THEBLACK

Sunday, December 28, 2008 3:02 AM

You can always move on...

I'm not one to stand in a man's way...

I'm not 'the government'...Not any more...

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, December 28, 2008 3:56 AM

Tempted to move on to less suicidal pastures. Atmosphere is getting kinda hostile.

Nice symbol, btw :)

OUT2THEBLACK

Sunday, December 28, 2008 4:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Tempted to move on to less suicidal pastures. Atmosphere is getting kinda hostile.

Nice symbol, btw :)

That's just your paranoia talkin' to ya...

You've got a little sense , knowin' when you're outmatched , and outgunned...

Move along , move along...

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, December 28, 2008 4:41 AM

I was refering to the suicidal tendencies of others, not myself. I don't have fear. I'm never outgunned, as you can see from my earlier posts. I'm content to be the unarmed man against an army, and I don't expect to lose.

A tacit admission of undue hostilities would be a good sign of communication skills, unless your posting of a yinyang was just a very subtle admission.

But I am moving along. The tone and defeatism is strong, and a pointless waste of time. I have stuff to do, and a revolution to deal with, and I'm not convinced that the fellow browncoats would be an asset.

As I said, anyone who cares can feel free to email me.

It's not this thread, it's been a string of threads to try to move people up to a higher level of discourse than to be at each other's throats at all times. This has proven fruitless, so I am abandoning ship.

For the record, I've known a good many people who have relived Custer's last stand. Not one of them has stood.

On a personal note, when someone admits to being wrong, and you have attacked them full force with regards to the malice of their misinformation, an apology is a simple and easy way to restore communcation.

I leave not because I'm outgunned, or in hostile territory, or because I lost this one, but because I see nothing here worth saving, or capable of being saved. Not that salvation is my thing, but that this is not a group collectively headed anywhere.

I came in to visit, and you were all at each other's throats like rabid dogs. I stood in the middle, and there was a moment of peace, and then all the dogs turned on me. In moments after my departure, you will again be at each other's throats, not moving forward towards a united front.

I'm giving up on this as a constructive resistance, I'm not ruling out any of its individual members, some of you I know, others are as I said, free to email me. I'm a realist, and I have a pretty solid bead on the real situation. There is a lot of fantasy here, and a lot of quixotic desparation, consigned to oblivion.

OUT2THEBLACK

Sunday, December 28, 2008 5:52 AM

Punk !

We barely knew ya !

Good riddance , too !

http://www.breakthematrix.com/

OUT2THEBLACK

Sunday, December 28, 2008 7:12 AM

OUT2THEBLACK

Sunday, December 28, 2008 7:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Tempted to move on to less suicidal pastures. Atmosphere is getting kinda hostile.

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.” --Theodore Roosevelt , 1858-1919

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, December 28, 2008 9:14 AM

Ok, how bout this for short.

That good enough ?

Too bad I don't meet your idealised personal concept of what you assume me to be, and for some reason you seem to think I might care.

Actually I got confused between ole Dale Carnegies work and "How to Succeed in Life" which was in fact written by Andrew Carnegie, and had no opportunity to correct it since I was rather busy covering rounds for one of my people, and walkin them on top of melted and refrozen slush topped off by freezing drizzle isn't exactly a restful thing on a bad leg day - shit happens, and demanding perfection from other human beings is idiotic.

Besides, whatever gave you the moronic idea I was a good guy, or a decent human being ?
I don't claim either one, never have, and had you *done your homework* - something you never do as you want everything compressed into a thirty-second soundbite and downloaded right into your brain or something, you might have some other picture than the one you prefer to draw because you're maybe offended that I do not fully agree with you.

Well, too bad, boo-fuckin-hoo, your own superior attitude, and repeated assumptions that I, being one random jerk on an internet message board, give a shit what you, one random jerk on an internet message board, happen to think of me or what I do.

Get over yourself, I been bending backwards trying to be (relatively) nice to you, but I see now that you just want your puny little ego stroked and now that it ain't happenin, you'll prolly pout, whine, and threaten to take your little ball and go home, as if we'd shed a bitter tear...

One final bit of advice - if you ever really wanna change anything, you are going to HAVE to do the research yourself, and then be willing to do what it takes no matter how awful, or how high the psychological cost is gonna be, and I just don't see you doin either one.

So.. adieu.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, December 28, 2008 2:50 PM

This has nothing to do with me losing this argument. I'm still in no way offended. Just bored. I'm not superior, or inferior. I'm just leaving, and posting that notice in case anyone cared and wanted to contact me. Like lurkers, I might check back, but debates like these, whether won or lost, are irrelevant, they are not action, they are infighting. This identical debate with the identical outcome, carried out in a concise, cordial and productive manner, could have wasted a lot less time.

Quote:
OUT2THEBLACK

Punk !

We barely knew ya !

Good riddance , too !

You already told me to leave, and I decided it was a good idea. This is not because I felt "kicked out of a club," but that I was wasting my time.

I was here for years, and left before when personal attack threads began, of the nature of of "let's all hate Mr X." None of them were directed at me, but it was childish and hostile.

Look at my other posts and threads and you will see that I came back to see if people could be united against govt. tyranny. They couldn't.

What I see is not men of action. Don't waste time with insults in an effort to offend me, it won't work. If you'd been through what I had, they wouldn't affect you either.

Quote:
FREM

Besides, whatever gave you the moronic idea I was a good guy, or a decent human being ?

If that was you trying to be nice, I don't want to see the rest. People who live in glass houses, (you do no research,) shouldn't throw stones.

You talk much, and say little.

EVERYONE:

Some people on this board are capable of civility. Everyone else should look at themselves and ask what they're doing here.

For the record, the entire debate was about people holed up by themselves with an AK47, I never questioned the right of anyone to organize against power. I did question the effectiveness. Every post opposing me was in support of lone gunmen holed up with their AK.

This developed into an all-on-one debate, ganging up as it were, but I did not feel ganged up against. I was wrong, even though I had done my research, I misinterpreted the intentions. I say this because my brother is an expert in this field, and and I trust his word over mine. Some people here, even hostile ones, already knew.

But this was NOT the point I was arguing. I was arguing against lone gunmen taking a last stand against tyranny. IMHO, that's idiotic, and gets you shot. Also, questioning the rights of reavers to carry assault rifles to use in offense against the general populace. I don't think anyone won this argument.

When I'm wrong, I freely concede the point without any sense of loss.

I would like to point out something ironic.

People on this thread who carried themselves like men were people whom, correct me if I'm wrong, I would have perceived to be young.

WULFENSTAR
AG05
COLE23
CHRISMOORHEAD

I'd have guessed KWICKO to be older, but carries himself well.

I ignore WHOZIT on the assumption that he's 15.

People on the personal attack ironically, I would say are about 40.

While this says good things about our society's future, it says something about older men who participate in such a forum which is sad.

Please correct me if I'm wrong about the ages.

I'm not dying, btw, I'm retreating to lurker status. This infighting is a waste of time. No offense to anyone who was civil. Or to others, which is to say, none intended, but they will find ways to take offense.

"you have no idea how easy a matter it is to offend a man who is on the look-out for offenses." -Frederick Douglas