“We need automatic guns so to defend against the military. ” - What???

originally posted by: bbracken677
"We will secure the border and send the illegals back" (Jews)

What?? You mean, mexicans. Last time I checked, the USA bordered Mexico - not Israel.

Unless I am grossly mistaking, of course.

"I promise the most transparent administration in the last 60 years" (hmm...that sounds familiar)

Indeed. Also check Russia's Glasnost.

"hope and change" (but in different words)

What do you want him to say? "despair and boredom"?

"Homeland" (Fatherland)

How else is he supposed to refer to the homeland? The "Code 1 Land"? Note that he could have called it "motherland", or even "Godland"... but didn't. He went for "Home".

"Tax the rich more...the rich are evil" (almost every election)

That's to satisfy the increasingly leftist population. At the same time, this "the riches are evil" is the core of Maoism, National Socialism, Leninism, etc. Now you see where the people's heart lies inside the US. The Hitler is yet to come - Obama has too much haters and detractors. In other words, the point is: The coming "Hitler", as you call it, will be a pro-revolutionary peasant full of hatred who will encourage people to take arms and revolt.
Do you imagine Obama doing that? No.
Do you imagine one of you guys doing that? Yes.

"I will end the malaise that is hanging over our heads" (hope and change?)

What do you want him to say? "I will continue the malaise that is hanging over our heads"?

"I will rid us of the threat of terrorists" (translate to Jews and communists in Nazi Germany)

Actually as the CFR (the Council which Obama is a member of) is composed of alot of Jews, along with other nationalities. If anything, Obama was referring, by "terrorists", to extremists who plant bombs or organize mass shootings.

a reply to: swanne

lol Perhaps, for the meaning of my post, you should read the post I was responding to.

a reply to: bbracken677

And perhaps to understand the meaning of this post of mine, which you replied to back then, you should read the precedent post.

Now, this thread is not about Obama, not even about having a handgun at home. It's about the realism of every citizens having his/her own personal military armament. Some folks around here firmly believe that the Second Amendment means everyone (and by everyone, of course, this includes the nuts out there) should not only have his/her gun, but also his/her own machine gun, his/her own tank, his/her own F-35, his/her own aircraft carrier, and even his/her own bombs. I am here to challenge that belief.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: bbracken677
NO!
I want pain STOPPED I want America strong and the "secret nation" to die as well as the progs integrated into a "safe" country.We want the 50s politeness modern values and less police state agencies.Soon we will see the latest POTUS crash and burn.I want a peaceful transition off to prison but there are a great many who might try something ...for which we will "eat their heads" . I don't want guns everywhere I have kept mine in home and rarely seen I don't NEED to scare anyone I already do THAT by standing around.
We have to avoid electing an Adolph Hitler now who is as right as Obama was left with his Coward and Piven B###SH#T.
WE WILL have a fight then...

Ah yes, America in the 1950's when everything was so much better than today... unless you're black, or a woman, or Jewish, or Asian, or pretty much anything other than a Caucasian male.

The ones screaming 'the rich are evil' obviously have made a bunch of wrong choices in life. Hows it feel hating on people who strived hard for their success, while you're on your ass discussing conspiracy theories?

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: bbracken677

And perhaps to understand the meaning of this post of mine, which you replied to back then, you should read the precedent post.

Now, this thread is not about Obama, not even about having a handgun at home. It's about the realism of every citizens having his/her own personal military armament. Some folks around here firmly believe that the Second Amendment means everyone (and by everyone, of course, this includes the nuts out there) should not only have his/her gun, but also his/her own machine gun, his/her own tank, his/her own F-35, his/her own aircraft carrier, and even his/her own bombs. I am here to challenge that belief.

If someone can afford an Abrams, F-35, or an aircraft carrier, they have enough money to buy an island and form their own military so your point is moot and your argument is invalid.

Machineguns are legal to own in most states with the proper registration process, background check, and taxes paid. In fact, ownership of a functional tank or artillery piece is legal but HIGHLY restricted as well. If you're motivated enough and have enough money you can own just about anything. A registered machinegun starts around $8,000 so the likelihood of someone being careless with that firearm and allowing it to end up in the hands of a criminal is incredibly slim. The argument is ridiculous because A) Machineguns aren't used to commit crime in the U.S. and B) If a criminal did want a machinegun, no law is going to prevent it... they'll buy an already illegal version.

Very few 2nd Amendment supporters believe that anyone should be able to purchase machineguns and destructive devices without at least submitting to a background check to verify that the person isn't a felon or mentally defective. The problem is, anti-gun folks refuse to allow a middle ground. They see the issue as black and white: "everyone can buy a machinegun so we need to make it completely illegal so nobody can get one." This is why gun owners aren't willing to "compromise" on the 2nd Amendment. For anti-gunners, a compromise means a massive infringement on our rights with ZERO effect on the criminals.

The only thing that the anti-gun folks and the pro-gun folks can agree on is that criminals who commit their acts with a gun should be buried UNDER the jail. The problem is, anti-gunners assume that removing guns would remove violent crime and it's simply not the case. History teaches us that men will always find an effective way to kill each other regardless the tools available to them. Firearms are an equalizer.

It is so simple to understand when you know that knowledge is power and that is the problem.

Some people like power, so they keep knowledge to themselves as a secret.

The most powerful of knowledge out there would be the secrets of the universe.

Absolute knowledge is absolute power and they corrupt absolutely...

originally posted by: blindlyzack
The ones screaming 'the rich are evil' obviously have made a bunch of wrong choices in life. Hows it feel hating on people who strived hard for their success, while you're on your ass discussing conspiracy theories?

Jealousy is an ugly thing to observe in a child, but it can be far worst seeing it in an adult liberal.

What cam first, the chicken or the egg?
What came first the dollar or good cents?

The point is that there are many folks out there that are just plain jealous of others that are successful in life and that jealously leads to hate.

I do not ever remember getting a good job from a lazy stupid poor person and yet the whiners seem to be of that character.

Say "Cheese".

Read Federalist Paper 46:

www.foundingfathers.info...

The thinking behind how the common man militia should greatly outnumber the federal standing army.

a reply to: swanne

My post was not about Obama, even though a couple of his catch phrases are included. Not because they are Obama's but because I believe the next campaign either or both candidates will mouth platitudes that mean the same, just different words.

With regards to the (Jews).. the first part of the line was from the next campaign and in parenthesis would be parallels with the Nazis with respect to treating the Jews as illegal immigrants.

a reply to: waltwillis

You have to look at history. Every wannabe dictator had to find a group to blame and to focus the anger of the people, to blind them from the reality of what they proposed and planned to do. The Narxist/Leninists had the Kulacks. The Nazis had the Jews. Our current crop of Brownshirts have the "one percent" and "The NRA" as their focus for their ten minutes of hate. The same tune, the words are just changed a little.

originally posted by: AnswerVery few 2nd Amendment supporters believe that anyone should be able to purchase machineguns and destructive devices without at least submitting to a background check to verify that the person isn't a felon or mentally defective.

Actually you are the very first to even mention the background check for record or mentally illness. After 330 replies, with more than half of them being pro-military equipment posts, none of these said pro-military equipment posters even realized that a check is a necessity.

So I do 100% agree with you about the background check. But I don't think all of the pro-military equipment posters here share your care about checks, they just want to grab the machine gun (and other military equipment) in the name of the Second Amendment, and any delays, such as checks for criminal records or for mental defects, will just make them cry like kids.

originally posted by: bbracken677
With regards to the (Jews).. the first part of the line was from the next campaign and in parenthesis would be parallels with the Nazis with respect to treating the Jews as illegal immigrants.

So your analogy was correct in the fact that your analogy isn't really an analogy.

What about:

Most scientists are Nazis, because they believe in Darwin's evolution, just like Hitler did.

See how silly it sounds?

originally posted by: tkwasny
The thinking behind how the common man militia should greatly outnumber the federal standing army.

It's not about numbers, anymore, it's about firepower. And now, the "standing federal army" has the nuclear bomb. Are you suggesting every common men should have the nuclear bomb too?

What is your point? Would you prefer we all just go quietly? Fk that.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: bbracken677
Some folks around here firmly believe that the Second Amendment means everyone (and by everyone, of course, this includes the nuts out there) should not only have his/her gun, but also his/her own machine gun, his/her own tank, his/her own F-35, his/her own aircraft carrier, and even his/her own bombs. I am here to challenge that belief.

Is that Hebrew on your profile avatar?

I wonder if a certain atrocity in Europe might have been avoided if the population owned tanks, his/her own F-35, his/her own aircraft carrier, and even his/her own bombs?

Challenge whatever belief you want -you can't deny history would have taken a very, very different course if the german people were armed well enough.

The only reason the french were able to revolt is because they were as well armed as their military. The United States of America revolted against their tyrannical overlords because they were as well armed as them - and won.

Challenge what you like - my question is why would you bother?

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: AnswerVery few 2nd Amendment supporters believe that anyone should be able to purchase machineguns and destructive devices without at least submitting to a background check to verify that the person isn't a felon or mentally defective.

Actually you are the very first to even mention the background check for record or mentally illness. After 330 replies, with more than half of them being pro-military equipment posts, none of these said pro-military equipment posters even realized that a check is a necessity.

So I do 100% agree with you about the background check. But I don't think all of the pro-military equipment posters here share your care about checks, they just want to grab the machine gun (and other military equipment) in the name of the Second Amendment, and any delays, such as checks for criminal records or for mental defects, will just make them cry like kids.

I work in the firearms industry so I spend nearly 100% of my time with "gun nuts" and many who own military equipment. I have never heard anyone say, in person, that there shouldn't be a background check to buy machineguns or even basic handguns and rifles.

The vast majority of gun owners feel that a certain level of background check is not an infringement on rights. There are posts online that claim anyone should be able to buy any firearm they want without a background check but that notion generally comes from people who are worried that the government will change the laws to add a broader definition of "mentally defective" and they're worried that they may end up on the list.

That's the main problem with the current legal environment surrounding firearms, there's WAY too much grey area. Whenever the anti-gun crowd starts to demand a change in the laws, it is a direct threat to a lifestyle shared by tens of millions of Americans. It has been proven that new firearm laws do nothing to reduce crime and only make life difficult for law-abiding hobbyists and hunters. Furthermore, a slight change in definition can turn a lot of people into criminals and it scares gun owners for obvious reasons. This fear leads to the claim that there should be no firearm laws whatsoever. Logically, we know that will never be the case so that sort of staunch extremism doesn't do either side any good.

a reply to: swanne

*facepalm*

lol whatever. I think you are trolling more than trying to understand how one post relates to another post. Believe what you wish. It matters not.

originally posted by: swanne
It's not about numbers, anymore, it's about firepower. And now, the "standing federal army" has the nuclear bomb. Are you suggesting every common men should have the nuclear bomb too?

That is a silly straw man argument.

A thermonuclear device is a strategic weapon that serves no practical purpose in this debate. The United States is not going to deploy one within its own borders on citizens and the citizens are not going to do the same.

a reply to: swanne

Are you trolling? Given how illogical your response to that post was as well as other posts, I think so.