Gun Control -- No matter what your opinion, you need to see this

It is sad that someone that had to earn the right to be a citizen must explain those rights to natural born citizens....shamefull. This is not just about the guns whether you own one, want to etc. It is about the right to protect ourselves from tyranny. The greatest country in the world and were about to lose the only right that retains the others. If we do end game. Great speech, great post op thank you

Originally posted by buster2010
This is one of the best "you have been put in your place videos" I've seen in a while. It's just a short speech about gun control. All I can say to the man is great speech and welcome to America.

I absolutely love this freaggen guy.

Originally posted by randyvs

Here's a thought to warm some of your hearts.... From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! In the state of Victoria..... lone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.(Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!) While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins andassaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in 'successfully ridding Australian society of guns....' You won't see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.

The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note Americans, before it's too late! Will you be one of the sheep to turn yours in? WHY? You will need it. Like · · Share 306 people like this. 413 shares 5 of 57 View previous comments Zavier Wayne Busby JACKPOT....I whant that,that,and everything else in that pile of goods about an hour ago · Like Tag Tweet rense.com... From Ed Chenel, A police officer In Australia Note - This Data Has Not Been Formally Substantiated 1-20-12 Australian Gun Law Update rense.com about an hour ago ·

Like Tag Tweet Can Ya'll Read? about an hour ago · Like Dan Goodman Not while my trigger finger still works. 26 minutes ago · Like Jagged Rose What a waste of good weapons and what a shame,.....think of all the people who can't defend themselves against the scum out there and their own tyrannical government. 8 minutes ago · Like

SnF OP

reply to post by redtic

But to argue that guns are a good thing for this earth is totally illogical.

I can see you are passionate about your belief system. Perhaps you'd be happier in another country that doesn't have the American gun culture?

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Ummm, because they can bomb a whole lot of us at once from above?

How's that working out for us in Iraq and Afghanistan? And, it wouldn't be too hard to overrun bases, especially since the only ones armed on the bases are the Military Police. All soldiers have to turn in their weapons to the armory when they arrive on base.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by billy82269

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by billy82269

It has been that way since before recorded history and is a part of human nature. Anything that gives the weak an equal footing is an achievement for humanity. The gun has done that throughout it's history, In fact, there would be no such concept as human or civil rights were it not for the gun. Irregardless of what is written on a piece of paper, the only rights you have are those you have the ability to fight for.

Jesus (willing to be crucified for his principles), Gandhi (went on hunger strikes), and Martin Luther King, Jr.(peaceful marches) -- fought for human and civil rights with no guns. They were pretty successful too.

LOL, no they weren't. Jesus was crucified and thousands upon thousands of Christians were slaughtered. The British empire was already crumbling and they were afraid that clamping down on Gandhi as hard as they could have would martyr him and cause an armed rebellion. MLK had the luxury of combating a state that had to tread lightly for fear of armed rebellion also. The Black Panther Party and Malcolm X had a militant following that the government feared far more.

I see - so Jesus was a failure, Gandhi was a failure, and Martin Luther King Jr. was a failure. Re-write history much?

Please show me any part of my statement that re-writes history.

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
reply to post by redtic

 

But to argue that guns are a good thing for this earth is totally illogical.

I can see you are passionate about your belief system. Perhaps you'd be happier in another country that doesn't have the American gun culture?

I think it's more that I'm passionate about rational thought, which America seems to be seriously lacking in lately. And for that reason, you could very well be correct...

reply to post by billy82269


LOL, pretty much all of it. The message of Jesus has carried for over 2,000 years - I'd say that was pretty successful. Gandhi's followers (which was pretty much all of India) would have never avenged his death with violence, because that would have been totally opposite his message. The British didn't need a strong army against India, because the people of India refused to fight, following Gandhi's message. The rest of the world so admired Gandhi and his message, Britain was shamed into giving in - so Gandhi won - the peaceful way. The Black Panthers were not a huge threat to the U.S. government, and Malcom X had turned to MLK's way of thinking at the end, so he was no threat. I think it's laughable that you think the government gave civil rights to blacks because they were afraid of the Black Panthers.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
reply to post by billy82269

 

LOL, pretty much all of it. The message of Jesus has carried for over 2,000 years - I'd say that was pretty successful. Gandhi's followers (which was pretty much all of India) would have never avenged his death with violence, because that would have been totally opposite his message. The British didn't need a strong army against India, because the people of India refused to fight, following Gandhi's message. The rest of the world so admired Gandhi and his message, Britain was shamed into giving in - so Gandhi won - the peaceful way. The Black Panthers were not a huge threat to the U.S. government, and Malcom X had turned to MLK's way of thinking at the end, so he was no threat. I think it's laughable that you think the government gave civil rights to blacks because they were afraid of the Black Panthers.

Hmmm, how many Christians were killed by Rome? Then Rome usurped his teachings and through an all powerful church enslaved an entire continent. Great success there. Not everyone in India agreed with Gandhi about non violence. Gandhi was a weird bird who thought martyring yourself was the best way to fight. He said the Jews during the holocaust should have committed mass suicide instead of letting the nazis kill them but he also said if you are a coward to martyr yourself, if the choice is between cowardice and violence then violence is the better choice. If the government were not afraid of the Black Panthers then why did Cointelpro engage them so ruthlessly?

Originally posted by kaylaluv
reply to post by billy82269

 

LOL, pretty much all of it. The message of Jesus has carried for over 2,000 years - I'd say that was pretty successful. Gandhi's followers (which was pretty much all of India) would have never avenged his death with violence, because that would have been totally opposite his message. The British didn't need a strong army against India, because the people of India refused to fight, following Gandhi's message. The rest of the world so admired Gandhi and his message, Britain was shamed into giving in - so Gandhi won - the peaceful way. The Black Panthers were not a huge threat to the U.S. government, and Malcom X had turned to MLK's way of thinking at the end, so he was no threat. I think it's laughable that you think the government gave civil rights to blacks because they were afraid of the Black Panthers.

I can see you were given a liberal indoctrination errr I mean education. Here is a little passage about the British India independence and the partitioning. Gandhi's peaceful ways or British shame had little to do with it.

Some critics allege that British haste led to the cruelties of the Partition. Because independence was declared prior to the actual Partition, it was up to the new governments of India and Pakistan to keep public order. No large population movements were contemplated; the plan called for safeguards for minorities on both sides of the new border. It was a task at which both states failed. There was a complete breakdown of law and order; many died in riots, massacre, or just from the hardships of their flight to safety. What ensued was one of the largest population movements in recorded history. According to Richard Symonds: At the lowest estimate, half a million people perished and twelve million became homeless.

However, many argue that the British were forced to expedite the Partition by events on the ground. Once in office, Mountbatten quickly became aware if Britain were to avoid involvement in a civil war, which seemed increasingly likely, there was no alternative to partition and a hasty exit from India. Law and order had broken down many times before Partition, with much bloodshed on both sides. A massive civil war was looming by the time Mountbatten became Viceroy. After the Second World War, Britain had limited resources, perhaps insufficient to the task of keeping order. Another viewpoint is that while Mountbatten may have been too hasty he had no real options left and achieved the best he could under difficult circumstances. The historian Lawrence James concurs that in 1947 Mountbatten was left with no option but to cut and run. The alternative seemed to be involvement in a potentially bloody civil war from which it would be difficult to get out of.

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
reply to post by ArtooDetoo

 

The law passed in 1938 forbade Jews and immigrants from owning guns and exempted Nazi officials from the paperwork of gun ownership. Regular people still needed permits and registration, which was (dis-)approved by the local police. The law that was passed before the Nazis by the Weimar wasn't because of the Treaty of Versailles, but to stop the Nazis and Communists from owning guns. The law was comprehensive enough that the Nazis didn't need to add on.

Your take on it is a little screwy.

“Within two months from the coming into force of the
present Treaty, German arms, munitions, and war material, including anti-aircraft
material, existing in Germany in excess of the quantities allowed, must be surrendered to
the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to be destroyed or
rendered useless.”

Cut the NRA bs, Hitler didnt confiscate guns and it didnt lead to Holocaust no matter what uneducated hicks on your local gun support rally say. Read and LEARN, this paper was written by University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt, debunking the myth about Hitler and gun control.

Jews were stripped of basic human rights, thats what led to their extinction, not gun control. Do you really think that Jews with guns would hada chance ? As one historian at Brown University who studies the Third Reich once said:

“Just imagine the Jews of Germany exercising the right to bear arms and fighting the SA, SS and the Wehrmacht. The [Russian] Red Army lost 7 million men fighting the Wehrmacht, despite its tanks and planes and artillery. The Jews with pistols and shotguns would have done better?”

reply to post by ArtooDetoo


A) read what I wrote and respond without the shrill emotion. I didn't say that the Jews would have been better off with gun
B) You seem to be very thoughtful about Hitler's intentions and the need to explain things

The whole debate as to whether prevalence of guns leads to more mass shootings is beside the point.. If we grant for a moment, that allowing people to possess semi autos with high cap magzines will lead to a massacre twice a year, then I would argue that that is a small price to pay for protection from tyranny.

The ills that come with the 2nd amendment are outweighed by the protection it offers to people as a whole.

Originally posted by ArtooDetoo
Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
reply to post by ArtooDetoo

 

“Just imagine the Jews of Germany exercising the right to bear arms and fighting the SA, SS and the Wehrmacht. The [Russian] Red Army lost 7 million men fighting the Wehrmacht, despite its tanks and planes and artillery. The Jews with pistols and shotguns would have done better?”

There might still be a lot of dead Jews, but it would of been urban warfare, different to a fight between standing armies. Further, the cost of the fight would likely have failed the cost/benefit analysis.. Exterminating a race may be acceptable to Nazis if it can be done cheaply, however, if it means fighting a well armed resistance to do it, it may be not so appealing.



edit: also if you had to die, would you rather go down like a rabid dog in a gas chamber or scarface; in a hale of gun fire?

reply to post by buster2010


government: Give us your guns.........

Citizens: come and take them.....


we need more logical thinkers like this man here
we are just going to have to deal with guns or there will be a civil war
tis country wass founded on revolution and extremists with guns

Originally posted by ArtooDetoo

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
reply to post by ArtooDetoo

 

The law passed in 1938 forbade Jews and immigrants from owning guns and exempted Nazi officials from the paperwork of gun ownership. Regular people still needed permits and registration, which was (dis-)approved by the local police. The law that was passed before the Nazis by the Weimar wasn't because of the Treaty of Versailles, but to stop the Nazis and Communists from owning guns. The law was comprehensive enough that the Nazis didn't need to add on.

Your take on it is a little screwy.

“Within two months from the coming into force of the
present Treaty, German arms, munitions, and war material, including anti-aircraft
material, existing in Germany in excess of the quantities allowed, must be surrendered to
the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to be destroyed or
rendered useless.”

Cut the NRA bs, Hitler didnt confiscate guns and it didnt lead to Holocaust no matter what uneducated hicks on your local gun support rally say. Read and LEARN, this paper was written by University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt, debunking the myth about Hitler and gun control.

Jews were stripped of basic human rights, thats what led to their extinction, not gun control. Do you really think that Jews with guns would hada chance ? As one historian at Brown University who studies the Third Reich once said:

“Just imagine the Jews of Germany exercising the right to bear arms and fighting the SA, SS and the Wehrmacht. The [Russian] Red Army lost 7 million men fighting the Wehrmacht, despite its tanks and planes and artillery. The Jews with pistols and shotguns would have done better?”

edit on 19-2-2013 by ArtooDetoo because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-2-2013 by ArtooDetoo because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-2-2013 by ArtooDetoo because: (no reason given)

Of course the jews wouldn't of been able to defeat the third reich but it might of saved some life's, been a torn in the reich's side, and maybe of helped end the war a little quicker. It seems a lot of people like to say well if the government ever did turn on the people then why try when we are so out matched and it's true but like a lot of people I would rather die trying then just give up. I know the chances are very slim for a tyrannical government in the near future but look at all the rights we are loosing, the horrible acts our government has committed, and the shape the world is around us. When you look at those things tyrannical government is not out of the question in unless america changes drastically (even smaller chance of happening then tyrannical government).

That gentleman is more educated than most natural born Americans. He did the research and presented facts.

I find it rather disturbing that the court was more worried about his time, rather than listening to what he actually said. To me, what the man said went in one ear and out the other to those he was talking to there. It seems the only people paying attention were the people in the crowd.

There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one MAKES them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. ... Create a nation of law-breakers, and then you cash in on the guilt.

From Ayn Rand novel: Atlas Shrugged

From what i qouted from the book. it seems this woman had seen the future doesnt it? Seems like we have been going down this path for awhile now. How soon until it is complete and "We The People" cannot do anything without a permit, say anything without being fined or imprisoned, breathe the air without paying a fee?

The question is: Who do you love? The disconnected "elite" pushing for an NWO who desperately desire an meagerly armed populace...or the Constitution?

reply to post by nancyliedersdeaddog

If the Jews had guns they might have been able to kill Hitler and his henchmen early on . That would have stopped the war .

reply to post by buster2010


We need to have gun control on the COPS.

Like this cop who THREATENS TO KILL someone he stopped (and stopped for no reason):

www.youtube.com...

Yet cops like this are allowed on the street every single day.

reply to post by maxhobbs


That idiot needs to be parking cars some where . There are ways to deal with problem people . His boss should be fired if he condones this .