Gun Control: I Told You So (Nanny-Nanny Boo-Boo)

See, although the Dems excel at wringing defeat from the jaws of victory, they are also capable of learning, in much the same way that child learns that a stove is hot. (I am now doing my patented "I told you so" dance.)

Obama and top White House aides have all but abandoned the issue. Emanuel helped orchestrate passage of the original assault-weapons ban when he worked in the Clinton White House. Now he and other White House strategists have decided they can't afford to tangle with the National Rifle Association at a time when they're pushing other priorities, like economic renewal and health-care reform, say congressional officials who have raised the matter. (According to his office, Emanuel couldn't be reached for comment because he was observing the Passover holiday.) A White House official, who asked not to be identified discussing internal strategy, says, "There isn't support in Congress for such a ban at this time." Ben LaBolt, a White House spokesman, says, "The president supports the Second Amendment, respects the tradition of gun ownership in this country, and he believes we can take common-sense steps to keep our streets safe," pointing to $2 billion in new funding for state and local law enforcement in the stimulus package. [...]

Democratic leaders like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer are determined to protect the seats of "blue dogs" from rural districts who are essential to preserving the party's majority in the House. "The Democratic Party understands this is a losing issue … It's a dead loser," says Democratic Rep. Dan Boren, of Muskogee, Okla. "Its one of the reasons they lost the Congress in 1994 and Al Gore was not elected president in 2000."

Boren is a good example of the kind of young blue dog who now holds sway on this issue. A lifelong hunter who bagged his first deer at the age of 9—and has a stockpile of 15 guns at home—Boren is an NRA member who was elected last year to the lobby's board of directors. "I can tell you, that assault-weapons ban is just an excuse to take away a sportsman's shotguns," he says. Boren also understands the political dynamics of his district, in which Obama got only 36 percent of the vote (while Boren cruised to reelection with 70 percent). "For a Democrat to run in eastern Oklahoma, we can't support gun control. We shouldn't go back and refight old battles. This is an old debate."

:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

See, although the Dems excel at wringing defeat from the jaws of victory, they are also capable of learning, in much the same way that child learns that a stove is hot. (I am now doing my patented "I told you so" dance.)

---

Although in your analogy, the child would have kept their hand on the hot stove for a good 15 minutes. Still, good to hear, especially the part about Holder being slapped down.

Quote:

---

Or given that Mexico's insanely violent drug cartels are arming themselves with high-powered assault weapons purchased at U.S. gun stores and later smuggled south of the border.

---

No, they're not :wall::wall:

Quote:

---

"It's weird," says Peter Hamm, the communications director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "When you see people like [Attorney General] Eric Holder or Hillary Clinton or [White House chief of staff] Rahm Emanuel become muted on this issue, you feel like you want to call up a friend and say, 'What's up?' "

---

The NRA's fortunes, are what. :beam:

CR

Nevermind... I'll prepare my answer later. When I'm not hurried up.

Just leaving with...

Why do you so desperately need to have an assault rifle??? Self defense? pff against what?, red commies?.

lol, they are openly pursuing gun-bans...now. Just give them time Lemur...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ||Lz3||

Nevermind... I'll prepare my answer later. When I'm not hurried up.

Just leaving with...

Why do you so desperately need to have an assault rifle??? Self defense? pff against what?, red commies?.

---

To protect ourselves against the Mexicans we sold the same rifles to!:laugh4:

Because I want to put holes in things? Once I'm settled financially I'm getting an AR-15. I have no desire to kill people I just have a small... I think it's cool

Step #1 Lemur - Registration. That is just what the socialist Hitler (who supported abortion, didn't want animal products used, and was a gun control advocate BTW. Not that that relates, but everyone likes to call the socialist slimeball 'rightwing', it is funny that he is leftwing on almost all social issues) did before the Holocaust. No one will register their guns if they think it is the first step to losing them, so you lie to them and tell them that it is just to keep children safer and they are in no danger of losing them. If you want to effectively disarm people, you will need to have the guns registered first so you know who has what. I am not saying that Obama is Hitler II necessarily, but simply that he IS following in his footsteps in WAY too many ways. If the Jews did not need to get permits for their guns, they would not have been able to disarm the Jews. If they had not disarmed the Jews, there could not have been a Holocaust.

Quote:

---

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
-- George Washington

---

Quote:

---

"That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
-Eric "George Orwell" Blair

---

You may think it is trite, but guns in the hands of citizens is how you ensure that the government does not turn into a control mechanism to exploit the people (as Hitler and Stalin did...both of whom were gun control advocates...). As I said above, I am not saying that Obama is Hitler II, or that we would make a Holocaust, but he does not have to. If his administration disarms the American people, or even takes the first step, that will make it all the easier for ambitious people to use the government to control the country to get what they want. You may not think it is important, but #2 is just as important as #1. All bans on guns in history that I have read about have ALL started with registration. I have obviously not studied all gun bans, so I do not know if there are not some that didn't, but at the least you can say that most did. Freedom to keep and bear arms needs to be protected, and gun registration is not doing that...it is doing the exact opposite. This is one of the big reasons I voted against Obama...this and his economic stupidity...

This isn't the 18th century, people can't just take up arms and march to battle if the government is oppressing them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

This isn't the 18th century, people can't just take up arms and march to battle if the government is oppressing them.

---

Shhh.....don't upset 'em. :quiet:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

This isn't the 18th century, people can't just take up arms and march to battle if the government is oppressing them.

---

lol, it is impossible for the government to take complete control of the country as long as its citizens are armed and resisting. Esp since we have a citizen military, and the only troops and resources available to the government would be those of other highly motivated people with the same goals. If the citizenry isn't armed though, it would be very possible for the government to take control of the country.
Sure, it isn't the 18th century...neither was 1938. The need for a people to be armed to ensure their own freedom has not changed through history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Step #1 Lemur - Registration. That is just what the socialist Hitler (who supported abortion, didn't want animal products used, and was a gun control advocate BTW. Not that that relates, but everyone likes to call the socialist slimeball 'rightwing', it is funny that he is leftwing on almost all social issues) did before the Holocaust. No one will register their guns if they think it is the first step to losing them, so you lie to them and tell them that it is just to keep children safer and they are in no danger of losing them. If you want to effectively disarm people, you will need to have the guns registered first so you know who has what. I am not saying that Obama is Hitler II necessarily, but simply that he IS following in his footsteps in WAY too many ways. If the Jews did not need to get permits for their guns, they would not have been able to disarm the Jews. If they had not disarmed the Jews, there could not have been a Holocaust.

---

Thank you for the most impressive Godwin it has been my privilege to read in this or any forum.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Thank you for the most impressive Godwin it has been my privilege to read in this or any forum.

:bow:

---

Godwin? Sorry, I do not know what you mean. Perhaps you would tell me where I am off in my post...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Thank you for the most impressive Godwin it has been my privilege to read in this or any forum.

:bow:

---

The speed was pretty good too: total elapsed time from OP to Godwin: 9 hours, 10 minutes. :thumbsup:


-edit-

Reference to "Godwin": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

The speed was pretty good too: total elapsed time from OP to Godwin: 9 hours, 10 minutes. :thumbsup:


-edit-

Reference to "Godwin": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

---

Sorry Kukri, I do not think I overuse comparing things to Hitler, or do it unless I think there is a good point to be made. The reason I did it here is because the same thing was done to create one of the greatest attrocities mankind has ever seen. I think that is worth pointing out. I didn't pick on Hitler though, I also mention Stalin (who was even worse). ~:P

Hilarious. Obama=Hitler. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

I didn't pick on Hitler though, I also mention Stalin (who was even worse). ~:P

---

Here we go again *grabs some popcorn*

Not only do we get the above classic, we can also discuss whether Hitler was a socialist. Two classics, in one, yeah! :2thumbsup:

Sure, Stalin was worse than Hitler, but the Nazis had snazzier uniforms and a more imagination-scarring methodology. So people flog the Nazis in discussion way, way more.

Vuk, the entire point of the OP was that the Dems have finally learned that attacking gun rights is a political loser, and they're backing away from it as fast as they humanly can. How this relates to your posts is kinda beyond my understanding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Here we go again *grabs some popcorn*

Not only do we get the above classic, we can also discuss whether Hitler was a socialist. Two classics, in one, yeah! :2thumbsup:

---

Hitler was a socialist. His party name was Nationalsozialismus. He was liberal on almost all social issues. He was a strong abortion advocate, a strong gun-control advocate, an animal rights advocate, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Hilarious. Obama=Hitler. :laugh4:

---

I specifically said that I was not saying Obama=Hitler, simply that he is making the mistake of going down a dangerous road.

No worries, mate. Calling a Godwin isn't necessarily an accusation; just an observation that over time, in any given thread, on any given topic, somebody will refer to Hitler or Nazi's. It happens here in the backroom all the time, especially in the threads that go beyond 3 pages.

Joking, Banquo's Ghost called a Godwin because of the depth and passion of your post that mentions Hitler. Continuing the joke, I pointed out how quickly Der Fuehrer was invoked.

To the topic: I read recently a movement within ATF to work up plans to somehow register ammunition. What is a gun, without bullets? Avoids the whole 2nd Am'nt thingee.

Um, okay Vuk. Turnabout is fair play: the Son of Sam serial killer lived with his parents, much like Vuk. I am specifically not saying that Vuk is like the Son of Sam, but he is engaging in much the same lifestyle as the notorious killer of young men and women. Also, Charlie Manson liked to have sex with women instead of men, just like Vuk. Note that I am not saying Vuk is like Charlie Manson, I'm just mentioning the two of them repeatedly in the same sentence.

See the problem? Bringing up Hitler is a bit of a loaded thing to do, no matter how many empty disclaimers you slap over it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

we can also discuss whether Hitler was a socialist. Two classics, in one, yeah! :2thumbsup:

---

Well he pretty much was. Nationalsocialist party has the word socialist in it.

Plus the colour red in the swastika-flag was chosen for a reason since they understood themselfs partly as a party for workers. But that's rather irrellevant, I admit.

I'm very happy to live in a country where nobody carries a gun. As strange as it may sound to some of you, I feel safer knowing there's no chance to get shot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

No worries, mate. Calling a Godwin isn't necessarily an accusation; just an observation that over time, in any given thread, on any given topic, somebody will refer to Hitler or Nazi's. It happens here in the backroom all the time, especially in the threads that go beyond 3 pages.

Joking, Banquo's Ghost called a Godwin because of the depth and passion of your post that mentions Hitler. Continuing the joke, I pointed out how quickly Der Fuehrer was invoked.

To the topic: I read recently a movement within ATF to work up plans to somehow register ammunition. What is a gun, without bullets? Avoids the whole 2nd Am'nt thingee.

---

Same horse, different colour. I think that the main move behind that is that it would discourage people from buying guns because ammunition would be too expensive. If it is the same thing that I read about, it would bring the cost of a single bullet up to over a dollar. That is absurd and certainly infringes of someone's right to keep and bear arms.

Quote:

---

Um, okay Vuk. Turnabout is fair play: the Son of Sam serial killer lived with his parents, much like Vuk. I am specifically not saying that Vuk is like the Son of Sam, but he is engaging in much the same lifestyle as the notorious killer of young men and women. Also, Charlie Manson liked to have sex with women instead of men, just like Vuk. Note that I am not saying Vuk is like Charlie Manson, I'm just mentioning the two of them repeatedly in the same sentence.

See the problem? Bringing up Hitler is a bit of a loaded thing to do, no matter how many empty disclaimers you slap over it.

---

Actually, that would not work, because Vuk does NOT live with his parents, and you know absolutely nothing about Vuk's lifestyle. If my politics were the politics of Stalin though, and I was leader of the country, I certainly think it would be fair game to bring that up. Even if I am not a Stalin repeat, just repeating some of the same policies, even without an evil intent, could be disasterous for the country.

Quote:

---

I'm very happy to live in a country where nobody carries a gun. As strange as it may sound to some of you, I feel safer knowing there's no chance to get shot.

---

No chance of getting shot eh? :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I'm very happy to live in a country where nobody carries a gun. As strange as it may sound to some of you, I feel safer knowing there's no chance to get shot.

---

Same here.
I mean we have a lot of hunters carring guns, but that's about it. In the city nobody carries guns and we have very little homocide by guns (little homocides in generall).
But if I was to tell that an american he would deny it and come up with facts about gun violence. Hence I leave the gun discussion to the americans. It's simply not my pie.

You learn summat new everyday on these boards.

Hitler was a liberal! Who'd a thowt it! :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Here we go again *grabs some popcorn*

Not only do we get the above classic, we can also discuss whether Hitler was a socialist. Two classics, in one, yeah! :2thumbsup:

---

The world would have been better off if Hitler, Stalin and Obama had been aborted. The only way Obama can redeem himself is if he supports a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

You learn summat new everyday on these boards.

Hitler was a liberal! Who'd a thowt it! :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

---

Hu? Who said that?

edit: I guess we are derailing the topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

If my politics were the politics of Stalin though, and I was leader of the country, I certainly think it would be fair game to bring that up. Even if I am not a Stalin repeat, just repeating some of the same policies, even without an evil intent, could be disasterous for the country.

---

So wait, Obama is not Hitler, but he has the same policies as Stalin? And leaving our guns alone is the first sign?

You've seriously lost me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

So wait, Obama is not Hitler, but he has the same policies as Stalin? And leaving our guns alone is the first sign?

You've seriously lost me.

---

Put the reading glasses on Lemur. :glasses:
~;)

I'm sorry, Vuk, but you super-extra-bonus random this morning. First you barge into a thread about how the Dems are walking away from gun control claiming that they are not, and bizzarrely link to an excerpt from Nancy Pelosi's book on ABC (a passage relating to Sala Burton battling cancer, no less). Then you make wild and unhelpful comparisons between Obama, Hitler and the Holocaust. Then you declare that you are not comparing Obama to Hitler, even though you just did. Then it tuns out you don't even know Godwin's Law or its prime corollary, which is strange.

Then somehow you work Stalin into this, while also attempting to derail the thread by starting an argument over whether or not Hitler was really a lefty Commie hippie. Then you're off an barking about ammunition prices and how it's all part of the plan to disarm the populace and send Jews to the ovens.

Dude, you are massively, epically random.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

aI read recently a movement within ATF to work up plans to somehow register ammunition. What is a gun, without bullets? Avoids the whole 2nd Am'nt thingee.

---

Kukri, if you're going to feed this paranoia, would it be too much to ask for a source? I could just as easily say that I read somewhere that Obama intends to kill all dogs. There, see, it's fact-free and designed to freak people out.

It's sunday, blame the hangover, Lemur ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I'm sorry, Vuk, but you super-extra-bonus random this morning. First you barge into a thread about how the Dems are walking away from gun control claiming that they are not, and bizzarrely link to an excerpt from Nancy Pelosi's book on ABC (a passage relating to Sala Burton battling cancer, no less). Then you make wild and unhelpful comparisons between Obama, Hitler and the Holocaust. Then you declare that you are not comparing Obama to Hitler, even though you just did. Then it tuns out you don't even know Godwin's Law or its prime corollary, which is strange.

Then somehow you work Stalin into this, while also attempting to derail the thread by starting an argument over whether or not Hitler was really a lefty Commie hippie. Then you're off an barking about ammunition prices and how it's all part of the plan to disarm the populace and send Jews to the ovens.

Dude, you are massively, epically random.

---

Oh, sorry, I must have linked to the wrong segment. The segment I meant to link to was where she said that the administration was gonna pursue gun registration. And I do not think my comparisons are unhelpful, I think they are a good warning as to why we should not go down that road.
So what if I did not know what Godwin's law is? I am not a professional internet troll. (I only work part time :P)
I used the comparison between myself and Stalin (good buddies that we are :P) in a theoretical way to show just how what I said about Hitler applies. And no, I was not trying to derail the thread, I simply mentioned the fact that Hitler was a socialist (it is historical fact, not my opinion) and was leftwing on his social policies. It was Kukri who brought up the ammo think, not me, and the rest of what you said in that sentense is putting words in my mouth. I am not being random, this is a thread about the administration's policy with gun-control.

Quote:

---

Kukri, if you're going to feed this paranoia, would it be too much to ask for a source? I could just as easily say that I read somewhere that Obama intends to kill all dogs. There, see, it's fact-free and designed to freak people out.

---

lol, I am hardly being paranoid. You are the one making wild accusations against me. Kukri does not need to provide a source because I read an article about it in the NRA a while back. :P (and we all know that the NRA is a definative source)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Here we go again *grabs some popcorn*

Not only do we get the above classic, we can also discuss whether Hitler was a socialist. Two classics, in one, yeah! :2thumbsup:

---

Everything comes back to Hitler!

Quote:

---

Nevermind... I'll prepare my answer later. When I'm not hurried up.

Just leaving with...

Why do you so desperately need to have an assault rifle??? Self defense? pff against what?, red commies?.

---

Because when the government becomes to powerful one day the people will form a militia and take then down with there sub par citizen assault rifles!

That's the poor argument echoed by a lot of people. I'm only personally in favour of them because at times I feel law enforcement can't be trusted as the sole bearer of fire arms. Whilst this is irrelevant in my country I can see why it's relevant in countries where the law enforcement can carry guns.

Personally I wouldn't trust just a specific set of people to have guns, we either all have guns or non of us have guns, that's how I see it.

Bringing up Nazism on the internet without knowing Godwin's Law is akin to selling drugs in New York without knowing the Rockefeller Laws. It's amateur hour.

And you don't want us "to go down the same road" as Hitler? Really? Do ya think? Well, I'm sure we're all terribly grateful that you dug up Hitler's grave and rolled his moldering corpse down here to make that point. 'Cause if you hadn't done so, who knows what might have happened?

Now, I'm guessing ('cause your link was clearly wrong) that Nancy Pelosi wrote something in a book about gun control. And this is the rather shaky foundation for your chaotic tower of rhetoric. Please provide your source, so we can at least see what spark lit this inferno of paranoia and ahistorical comparison.

-edit-

And what is it with rightwing Orgahs who declare that they don't need to provide sources or define their terms? If it happens one more time this week it will be a definite trend ....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/image...s/viewpost.gif
This isn't the 18th century, people can't just take up arms and march to battle if the government is oppressing them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Shhh.....don't upset 'em. :quiet:

---

Heh, tell that to Karzai.

I wonder if some patrons even know the difference between a fully-automatic firearm and a semi-automatic firearm? The difference is about 700 rds./min. and the full-auto version is not legal for most civilians to own or buy. Legal clip capacity for semi-auto rifles and shotguns in most states is also very limited, New York State is 5 rounds. The only exception I can think of is .22 caliber rifles.

So that semi-auto AR15 with the 5 round clip isn't what the average drug cartel goon wants, and he sure can afford the upgrade. Sure it looks like a machine gun/assault rifle, but it's function as an assault weapon is quite limited compared to the full auto version. Comparing the semi-auto rifle to the military version full auto is on a par with comparing a Maserati look fiberglass kit car to the real McCoy. The notion that every US gun owning citizen has an arsenal of machine guns under the bed is comical.

Quote:

---

"The president supports the Second Amendment, respects the tradition of gun ownership in this country, and he believes we can take common-sense steps to keep our streets safe," pointing to $2 billion in new funding for state and local law enforcement in the stimulus package.

---

And he best keep supporting it. I own handguns *with the registered permits required by NYS*, hunting rifles & shotguns. I'm a law-abiding citizen, Marine Corps vet, who has the right to keep these arms. My Constitution and 233 years of US history and case law says so. Any attempt to infringe on this right that goes beyond common sense restrictions that are already in place will be vigorously resisted. I give up none of my rights, and any politician that tries to take them can ~:flirt: my :daisy:.

Quote:

---

Because when the government becomes to powerful one day the people will form a militia and take then down with there sub par citizen assault rifles!

That's the poor argument echoed by a lot of people.

---

One doesn't have to take down the guvment by force of arms. If the resistence is wide spread and persistent enough than numbers alone will force change.

I have to say, I've been entertained this afternoon.

Well, Hitler did work up an amazing social and economic comeback of Germany, which the Weimar Republic couldn't. If Obama is Hitler in that way, then USA are quite well handled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

One doesn't have to take down the guvment by force of arms. If the resistence is wide spread and persistent enough than numbers alone will force change.

---

I agree in principle, but I'm unable to think of a successful example. The Whiskey Rebellion? They had right on their side, certainly, but they lost, big-time. The Civil War (or the War of Northern Aggression, if you're in the South)? Again, they lost. Hard. Is there a practical example from our history where the citizens successfully changed guv policy through armed resistance? I'm guessing there must be ....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Well, Hitler did work up an amazing social and economic comeback of Germany, which the Weimar Republic couldn't. If Obama is Hitler in that way, then USA are quite well handled.

---

Oh for crying out loud. Why don't you Hitler fetishists go start your own thread where you can praise and damn the Führer on your own dime. ENOUGH!

The revolution?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

Heh, tell that to Karzai.

I wonder if some patrons even know the difference between a fully-automatic firearm and a semi-automatic firearm? The difference is about 700 rds./min. and the full-auto version is not legal for most civilians to own or buy. Legal clip capacity for semi-auto rifles and shotguns in most states is also very limited, New York State is 5 rounds. The only exception I can think of is .22 caliber rifles.

So that semi-auto AR15 with the 5 round clip isn't what the average drug cartel goon wants, and he sure can afford the upgrade. Sure it looks like a machine gun/assault rifle, but it's function as an assault weapon is quite limited compared to the full auto version. Comparing the semi-auto rifle to the military version full auto is on a par with comparing a Maserati look fiberglass kit car to the real McCoy. The notion that every US gun owning citizen has an arsenal of machine guns under the bed is comical.



And he best keep supporting it. I own handguns *with the registered permits required by NYS*, hunting rifles & shotguns. I'm a law-abiding citizen, Marine Corps vet, who has the right to keep these arms. My Constitution and 233 years of US history and case law says so. Any attempt to infringe on this right that goes beyond common sense restrictions that are already in place will be vigorously resisted. I give up none of my rights, and any politician that tries to take them can ~:flirt: my :daisy:.



One doesn't have to take down the guvment by force of arms. If the resistence is wide spread and persistent enough than numbers alone will force change.

---

Exactly. No one is talking about assembling on a field and fighting the military if there is a law they do not like. It is just that the fact that people are armed is enough for the government NOT to be able to exercise full control over the citizenry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Bringing up Nazism on the internet without knowing Godwin's Law is akin to selling drugs in New York without knowing the Rockefeller Laws. It's amateur hour.

And you don't want us "to go down the same road" as Hitler? Really? Do ya think? Well, I'm sure we're all terribly grateful that you dug up Hitler's grave and rolled his moldering corpse down here to make that point. 'Cause if you hadn't done so, who knows what might have happened?

Now, I'm guessing ('cause your link was clearly wrong) that Nancy Pelosi wrote something in a book about gun control. And this is the rather shaky foundation of your chaotic tower rhetoric. Please provide your source, so we can at least see what spark lit this inferno of paranoia and ahistorical comparison.

-edit-

And what is it with rightwing Orgahs who declare that they don't need to provide sources or define their terms? If it happens one more time this week it will be a definite trend ....

---

Amateur? Yeah, I gues you are right. I do have a life aside from the internet.


You should always put current events into the context of history. If people did, most suffering in the world would probably not exist.

I'll get you think in a sec, I obviously posted to the wrong segment. And thanks for lumping the members who do not agree with you into the pot of "rightwing Orgahs". I said that he did not need to provide a source for me, because I knew what he was talking about. If he wants to give you a source, that is his choice.

And BTW, I do not see how pointing out a trend (that we would be following if we were to institute firearm registration) of disarment throughout history, and pointing to the disasterous effects that it brings is being paranoid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

That is absurd and certainly infringes of someone's right to keep and bear arms.

---

So the price of an oil tanker infringes on your right to keep and bear oil tankers?

Epic thread. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Oh for crying out loud. Why don't you Hitler fetishists go start your own thread where you can praise and damn the Führer on your own dime. ENOUGH!

---

Eh? That was unexpected. Much more the name calling of being an Hitler fetishist. Which I feel insulted when I just pointed out a mere fact, without ever saying whether I supported or stood against anything he did. Truly unexpected from you Lemur

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Eh? That was unexpected. Much more the name calling of being an Hitler fetishist. Which I feel insulted when I just pointed out a mere fact, without ever saying whether I supported or stood against anything he did. Truly unexpected from you Lemur

---

eh?

Quote:

---

So the price of an oil tanker infringes on your right to keep and bear oil tankers?

---

The law would restrict the ammunition you could buy directly, and indirectly through price. THAT infringes on your right.
It is like a law saying that you can voice your opinion, but only through special fliers you have to file with our office is not infringing on your right to free speech.

Lemur, did you bother to see the video? Fast forward to -2:25, that is where she talks about it. It was right there, in the link I provided.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

eh?

---

Didn't think Lemur was a guy so say such a thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Didn't think Lemur was a guy so say such a thing.

---

Oh, I can say that and worse when I get irritated. I'm sorry I was so harsh, and it's not as thought you deserved it, but I am genuinely honked off that the leader of the Third Reich has been repeatedly and pointlessly injected into a thread I started. Words fail me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

The revolution?

---

Suuuuuure, of course, but I was asking if there was an example after that. Since the American Revolution ended, we no longer have the advantage of an extremely expensive ocean to cross when the Oppressive Government wants to send more Hessian troops to quell the tea-baggers. We've been armed and prepared to resist domestic tyranny for 233 years. Has it been done successfully? I think it's a fair question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Suuuuuure, of course, but I was asking if there was an example after that. Since the American Revolution ended, we no longer have the advantage of an extremely expensive ocean to cross when the Oppressive Government wants to send more Hessian troops to quell the tea-baggers. We've been armed and prepared to resist domestic tyranny for 233 years. Has it been done successfully? I think it's a fair question.

---

The problem is though that there has never been a time since that the government has turned completely against the people, and nation-wide armed resistance has been necassary. Do you know why that is? Cause the people have been armed. Arms keep peace without being used. They just gotta be there. I really want to work out an example from Soviet control in Hungary, but I am not gonna waste the time. :P

But what if Obama read "Mein Kampf" by Hitler?

Uhm, just kidding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

The problem is though that there has never been a time since that the government has turned completely against the people, and nation-wide armed resistance has been necassary. Do you know why that is? Cause the people have been armed. Arms keep peace without being used.

---

There are so many european contries that prove your argument to be wrong. E.g.: Norway.
People do not need to be armed to keep a goverment running efficiently for the people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fixiwee

There are so many european contries that prove your argument to be wrong. E.g.: Norway.
People do not need to be armed to keep a goverment running efficiently for the people.

---

And in many cases, these countries do not have all the intricate checks-and-balances the US system has through its Constitution. No country has less need for the capacity to armed resistance than the US.

Halfway through the first page, this thread had me in exaspiration. Everything that's wrong with internet debating and the Backroom.

By now, however, I'm firmly convinced this is the greatest thread in the history of mankind.

Epic. Epic. Epic. :laugh4:

Actually, what was I thinking above? Must join.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Oh, I can say that and worse when I get irritated. I'm sorry I was so harsh,

---

Man, that sounds dramaqueenish. Are you gay, or what?

Hitler hated gays. And he was right, because if gays get guns then they will recruit even more. See my link in the other thread how gays UNDERMINED the Weimar Republic. Give them a finger and they will keep forcing their Godless ways on society, just as they've done with evolution.

I am very disappointed in you as well, Lemur, starting this gay thread and disguising it as an anti-gun one. I bet you hoped that we'd fall for it and handed over our guns, eh? Well tough luck buddy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

And in many cases, these countries do not have all the intricate checks-and-balances the US system has through its Constitution. No country has less need for the capacity to armed resistance than the US.

---

Armed citizenry IS one of those checks and balances.

Quote:

---

Man, that sounds dramaqueenish. Are you gay, or what?

Hitler hated gays. And he was right, because if gays get guns then they will recruit even more. See my link in the other thread how gays UNDERMINED the Weimar Republic. Give them a finger and they will keep forcing their Godless ways on society, just as they've done with evolution.

I am very disappointed in you as well, Lemur, starting this gay thread and disguising it as an anti-gun one. I bet you hoped that we'd fall for it and handed over our guns, eh? Well tough luck buddy.

---

Thank you for your mature, constructive contribution sir. :bow:
I am glad that we have senior members like you to add your wisdom.

Yeah, I wasn't asking a rhetorical question, but a genuine one. My knowledge of American history is far from comprehensive, and for all I know there has been an example of armed resistance to the U.S. gov that has worked. But all that springs to mind is the Whiskey Rebellion and the Civil War. There must be other instances, even if they're not on the same scale.

As for the argument that the reason there has been no oppressive gov is because we're all armed, well, it's a bit of circular reasoning, innit? As Fixiwee points out, there are several examples of Euro nations that do not maintain an armed citizenry that are not oppressive. And there are many examples of nations where everybody is armed to the teeth and life is utterly miserable (Somalia, Beirut, the former Yugoslavia, Congo, etc.).

Note that I am in favor of gun ownership, and I think it's a good thing. That seems to get lost in all of this Hitler-hugging and rhetorical excess.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx_6WekXKcM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Armed citizenry IS one of those checks and balances.

---

No it's not. The ballot box is. If you don't like what Obama is doing in 4 years you can vote him out. Simply because someone you don't agree with is in power does not mean that he is the anti-christ and he's going take our wonderful penile enlarging firearms.

I would have loved to see some of you in 1960. A catholic! President! He's going to take orders from Rome! The US is going to be under the papist jackboot!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Yeah, I wasn't asking a rhetorical question, but a genuine one. My knowledge of American history is far from comprehensive, and for all I know there has been an example of armed resistance to the U.S. gov that has worked. But all that springs to mind is the Whiskey Rebellion and the Civil War. There must be other instances, even if they're not on the same scale.

As for the argument that the reason there has been no oppressive gov is because we're all armed, well, it's a bit of circular reasoning, innit? As Fixiwee points out, there are several examples of Euro nations that do not maintain an armed citizenry that are not oppressive. And there are many examples of nations where everybody is armed to the teeth and life is utterly miserable (Somalia, Beirut, the former Yugoslavia, Congo, etc.).

Note that I am in favor of gun ownership, and I think it's a good thing. That seems to get lost in all of this Hitler-hugging and rhetorical excess.

---

Gun-ownership is ONE of the checks and balances. The founders gave us an excellent government that has serveds us very well, and it is full of checks and balances. As for the Former Yugoslavia (I will not tackle the others (esp Beirut) as my knowledge of them is far from comprehensive), which is my specialty of study, they had a civil war, plain and simple.
It is an excellent example though. Before Tudjman put his radical Ustasha in control of regions in the Krajina, which is what sparked the war in Bosnia which pread throughout the rest of the former Yugoslavia, he first disarmed Serbs living in the Croatia and did not let them serve in public office or police functions. Once the Serbs were disarmed, he was able to put the radical Ustasha (responsible for the ethnice cleansing of Serb populace and murder of 100's of thousands of Serbs during WWII) in charge of provinces on the already hot Krajina. Of course this provoked outrage among the Serbs, which allowed for Serbian radical groups such as the White Eagles to claim power (as they were the only real military force on the Krajina) to fight the Ustasha. Both sides then committed attrocities against each other. Tudjman would never have been able to do that though, and the war would never have happened if he did not first disarm the Serbs. Once he did, the Ustasha started their persecutions, and there was nothing that unarmed Serbs could do.

Quote:

---

No it's not. The ballot box is. If you don't like what Obama is doing in 4 years you can vote him out. Simply because someone you don't agree with is in power does not mean that he is the anti-christ and he's going take our wonderful penile enlarging firearms

---

ummm...wow Strike. Did you even read what I said? I never said that people should oppose politicians they do not like with firearms, I said that the fact that the citizenry is armed is a detterent to anyone who would use the power of the government to exploit the people. When I do not like a politician (as I do not like Obama), I make phone calls, I vote against them, and then I try to raise awareness afterwards. I don't shoot people cause I don't like them Strike, and I would love to see which part of my post could make you think that.


EDIT: Oh, and by the way, I don't think you should try to use one to enlarge your :daisy:. It may end up doing the exact opposite. :yes:

You know, he might be onto summat about Herr Schicklgruber. After all if it wasn't for those darn Hessians the Yanks'd be drinking tea and eating crumpets. Unarmed of course. :balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Kukri, if you're going to feed this paranoia, would it be too much to ask for a source? I could just as easily say that I read somewhere that Obama intends to kill all dogs. There, see, it's fact-free and designed to freak people out.

---

Frankly, I originally thought this thread (with: "...I Told You So (Nanny-Nanny Boo-Boo)" as a title) was intended as a light-hearted, sort of satirical update of the gun-control discussion we have every week or so lately.

I further mis-apprehended intentions when I saw vuk invoking Godwin so early and passionately. Honestly, I thought he was deliberately playing along. And I thought BG was too. So I joined the frolic.

I see the error or my ways now - everyone is deadly serious, and I shouldn't kid around.

A simple Google Search for 'register' + 'ammunition' will yield 2,040,000 results, most dominated by NRA articles, but also including newspaper reports and politician blogs about (mostly unsuccessful) attempts to register ammunition as a way 'round having to fight the direct fight for-or-against banning citizens bearing arms.

My reference to ATF plans was a mistake. I haven't the liberty to speak on that. Sorry. I withdraw the remark.

Good Lord (He is risen, alleluia!)!

I read this simple little "you guys were so over the top about gun control, see!" thread before I go to bed, get home from church and a bit of breakfast, and you've all decided to leap off of cliffs. Epic indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Good Lord (He is risen, alleluia!)!

I read this simple little "you guys were so over the top about gun control, see!" thread before I go to bed, get home from church and a bit of breakfast, and you've all decided to leap off of cliffs. Epic indeed.

---

Hey, at least we kept it clean and quasi-polite. ~;) ~:P
I was gonna add more, but I will not. I leave for Serbia tomorrow and I have had enough of debates. :P
And so I bow out. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

ummm...wow Strike. Did you even read what I said? I never said that people should oppose politicians they do not like with firearms, I said that the fact that the citizenry is armed is a detterent to anyone who would use the power of the government to exploit the people. When I do not like a politician (as I do not like Obama), I make phone calls, I vote against them, and then I try to raise awareness afterwards. I don't shoot people cause I don't like them Strike, and I would love to see which part of my post could make you think that.


EDIT: Oh, and by the way, I don't think you should try to use one to enlarge your :daisy:. It may end up doing the exact opposite. :yes:

---

You contradicted yourself in one sentence. Nice.

Quote:

---

Armed citizenry IS one of those checks and balances

---

I'll overlook the fact that an armed citizen is not one of the checks and balances. Those would be the three branches of government. One of which is the ballot box. (legislature but in a republic that's what we get)

That's all I responded to. I never said you were going to shoot anyone or any of that. [potentiall offensive sentence deleted. SF] The man has been in office 3 months? That's not enough time to set up a socialist paradise if he wanted to.

Also, let's say Obama is the anti-christ social leader who is going to kill all our beautiful white blue eyed children. If that's what the American people want why can't we have it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

lol, it is impossible for the government to take complete control of the country as long as its citizens are armed and resisting. Esp since we have a citizen military, and the only troops and resources available to the government would be those of other highly motivated people with the same goals. If the citizenry isn't armed though, it would be very possible for the government to take control of the country.
Sure, it isn't the 18th century...neither was 1938. The need for a people to be armed to ensure their own freedom has not changed through history.

---

*cough*Iraq*cough*

So....

When is the abortion-thread coming?

I think it's gay single parents turn, I'm sure it is.

It's been a while since the last creationism thread.

Perhaps a gay single parent creationist who has an abortion might be in order then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

You contradicted yourself in one sentence. Nice.



I'll overlook the fact that an armed citizen is not one of the checks and balances. Those would be the three branches of government. One of which is the ballot box. (legislature but in a republic that's what we get)

That's all I responded to. I never said you were going to shoot anyone or any of that. I'm just pointing out that your constant tin foil hat theories hold no merit what so ever. The man has been in office 3 months? That's not enough time to set up a socialist paradise if he wanted to.

Also, let's say Obama is the anti-christ social leader who is going to kill all our beautiful white blue eyed children. If that's what the American people want why can't we have it?

---

You are maliciously putting words in my mouth now Strike. I said that citizens having firearms was a part of checks and balances because it acts as a deterrant to government oppression. I never said anything about any politicians, or using guns to keep politicians in line.
What does "The man" (and by "The man" I take it you mean Obama) being in office for 3 months have to do with anything? When did I say anything about setting up a socialist paradise? When did I say anything about him being evil or having bad intentions? I know I certainly did not say the racism you falsely accused me of saying. I simply said that the course of action he is taken will only weaken our 2nd amendment right, as it has done to everyone else who instituted gun registration.

I am not going to be cynical and call you a blatant and malicious liar, so I will instead advise you to sober up and read my posts again before falsely accusing me. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

You are maliciously putting words in my mouth now Strike. I said that citizens having firearms was a part of checks and balances because it acts as a deterrant to government oppression. I never said anything about any politicians, or using guns to keep politicians in line.

---

Ok but it's not part of the checks and balances. Guns have no place in the way we govern. The government is made up of politicians and the guns are used to keep the peace (as you said) how is that not keeping them in line?

Quote:

---

What does "The man" (and by "The man" I take it you mean Obama) being in office for 3 months have to do with anything? When did I say anything about setting up a socialist paradise? When did I say anything about him being evil or having bad intentions? I know I certainly did not say the racism you falsely accused me of saying. I simply said that the course of action he is taken will only weaken our 2nd amendment right, as it has done to everyone else who instituted gun registration.

---

You compared him to Freaking Hitler. How is that not evil or bad intentions? How in Gods name is that not meant to scare people and then you said Hitler was actually a "slimeball socialist" That's pretty evil and bad intentions to me. Much more than putting restrictions on gun control sweetheart.

Quote:

---

I know I certainly did not say the racism you falsely accused me of saying.

---

hy⋅per⋅bo⋅le   [hahy-pur-buh-lee] Show IPA
–noun Rhetoric.
1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”

Quote:

---

I am not going to be cynical and call you a blatant and malicious liar, so I will instead advise you to sober up and read my posts again before falsely accusing me. :bow:

---

Sober up? Please If I was drunk I would make Tribesman look like an altar boy. You really are the king of "I'm not saying, I'm just saying" Aern't you?

Personally, I think Obama is more like Pol Pot since he hates US soldiers and will give them crappy weapons like bamboo sticks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Personally, I think Obama is more like Pol Pot since he hates US soldiers and will give them crappy weapons like bamboo sticks.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piWCBOsJr-w

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

It's been a while since the last creationism thread.

---

Fact: US states with the highest gun ownership have best managed to keep commies, terrorists, gays and their wicked creationism out. :yes:

Take that, ye limey socialist. :smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Ok but it's not part of the checks and balances. Guns have no place in the way we govern. The government is made up of politicians and the guns are used to keep the peace (as you said) how is that not keeping them in line?

Not as a direct thing directed at any politician, but as a safeguard to ward away people with the wrong ambitions, and a last resort if the government is completely taken over. I believe that earns it a spot in check and balances. It makes sure the government cannot grow to powerful, and therefor puts a 'check' on it.

You compared him to Freaking Hitler. How is that not evil or bad intentions? How in Gods name is that not meant to scare people and then you said Hitler was actually a "slimeball socialist" That's pretty evil and bad intentions to me. Much more than putting restrictions on gun control sweetheart.

I was not saying (and honestly do not believe) that Obama plans to do what Hitler did after he puts gun control into effect, but I DO believe that for different reasons he plans to institute gun control. I used hitler as one of several historical examples to show what can happen when citizens cannot defend themselves. I believe the former Yugoslavia is another great one. That does not mean that I think Obama is Tudjman or Stalin, or Hitler. I said that Hitler was a socialist because people always tell me that Hitler was a conservative, and HE WAS NOT! It :daisy: me off. They say this is an example of why conservatism is dangerous, when it isn't. It was an entirely different thought, which I acknowledged, and is why I set it off.


hy⋅per⋅bo⋅le   [hahy-pur-buh-lee] Show IPA
–noun Rhetoric.
1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”

An exagerration of my intent? So what was my intent? Quasi racism? Half racism? Sorry, I do not buy it. What you were doing is equating legal gun ownership, conservatism, and racism in a very malicious fashion.


Sober up? Please If I was drunk I would make Tribesman look like an altar boy. You really are the king of "I'm not saying, I'm just saying" Aern't you?
If the shoe fits... No offense Strike, but you said what you said and left little reason to believe it was anything but a malicious attack. The only other possible explanation I could think of was that you had too much to drink.

---

Vuk

Haha you Yankie fools, all this time we've lead you to believe that Obama is a neo-Nazi Stalinist Muslim, but that was all nothing more than an elaborate diversion. Obama is in fact British, and he's out to make the US people become subjects of Her Majesty once again. Why do you think he bowed to the Saudi royals? It is because he is a monarchist, upholding kings and queens around the globe.

As well as his aunt being an illegal immigrant, it turns out his brother is a sex offender. Hopefully this will not seriously damage relations between the Houses of Windsor and Obama, we will wait and see...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Haha you Yankie fools, all this time we've lead you to believe that Obama is a neo-Nazi Stalinist Muslim, but that was all nothing more than an elaborate diversion. Obama is in fact British, and he's out to make the US people become subjects of Her Majesty once again. Why do you think he bowed to the Saudi royals? It is because he is a monarchist, upholding kings and queens around the globe.

As well as his aunt being an illegal immigrant, it turns out his brother is a sex offender. Hopefully this will not seriously damage relations between the Houses of Windsor and Obama, we will wait and see...

---

Thank you for the constructive and on-topic post Rhyfelwyr. :bow: Your post's avoidance of facts, lack of substance, misinterpretations, generalizations, and off-topicness makes it a sure candidate for post of the month I am sure.

EDIT: no offense Rhyfelwyr, but I am trying to have a serious discussion, and people keep putting words in my mouth, making generalizations, and blowing off any point I make with a sarcastic comment...then going back and saying that I said things I did not say all over again. It is annoying... I need a break, I am gonna go to bed now. I am going out to Serbia tomorrow, and will not be back for a week, so don't give me too much to have to wade through. :P

Possibly tongue in cheek?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Possibly tongue in cheek?

~:smoking:

---

I realise that he was only joking, but

Quote:

---

believe that Obama is a neo-Nazi Stalinist Muslim

---

is the exact same crap that I have been getting all this time. :P Sorry, but my sense of humor is just not what it usually is. :P I will enjoy my holiday off I think. :P

Night all :bow:

Apologies Vuk, I did not mean to offend you personally. It was not so much aimed at your own posts, but rather making a light hearted joke about the stereotype generalisations people make. You've probably seen me around enough in the Backroom to know I'm often in a similar situation to the one you are in right now. It's just with so many OT posts, I thought this thread had lost its seriousness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Step #1 Lemur - Registration. That is just what the socialist Hitler (who supported abortion, didn't want animal products used, and was a gun control advocate BTW. Not that that relates, but everyone likes to call the socialist slimeball 'rightwing', it is funny that he is leftwing on almost all social issues) did before the Holocaust. No one will register their guns if they think it is the first step to losing them, so you lie to them and tell them that it is just to keep children safer and they are in no danger of losing them. If you want to effectively disarm people, you will need to have the guns registered first so you know who has what. I am not saying that Obama is Hitler II necessarily, but simply that he IS following in his footsteps in WAY too many ways. If the Jews did not need to get permits for their guns, they would not have been able to disarm the Jews. If they had not disarmed the Jews, there could not have been a Holocaust.

---

I see. You're not saying he's Hitler II "per se", just that he's following in his footsteps. TOOOOOTALY different, right?