I freakin love this gun billboard (features Native Americans)

reply to post by redtic

They put this up to scare people into thinking the current gov't wants to take their guns, which they don't.

The head line is:

Gov. Brown OKs funds to confiscate guns from criminals, mentally ill

Yes that's California, Obama's testing grounds or other wise known as The Nanny State.
Guns out of the hands of Criminals, I agree with completely, But who is to say who is Mentally ill,, The Government?
Doesn't that make you just a little nervous, The Government is going to decide your mental competence, using what, Obamacare guidelines?

SACRAMENTO -- Gov. Jerry Brown on Wednesday signed legislation aimed at taking handguns and assault rifles away from 20,000 Californians who acquired them legally but have since been disqualified from ownership because of a criminal conviction or serious mental illness.

The state operates a database that cross-references a list of gun owners with those disqualified later from owning guns. But, budget cuts have prevented the state Department of Justice from keeping up with the growing number of people on the list.

www.latimes.com...
Yes, the State is going to use their data base of gun owners,,,, So, only people who've followed the rule of law and properly registered their weapon with the State correctly,,, Law Abiding Citizens.
Of-Course if said Law Abiding Citizen committed a crime which forfeits his or her rights to own a weapon, yes, by all means that weapon should be confiscated,,,,

But then again, shouldn't that weapon have been confiscated at the time of arrest?
Yes, you just go ahead and Trust The Government to care for you and your family.
Listen to the local media telling you to stay indoors and not to come outside because of the danger lurking there that you are not prepared to handle. The Government is surrounding your neighborhood for your own protection.

OP I need to stop now, Sorry, but the Sheeple that believe that Dribble from our Government

Originally posted by Anonbeleiver77
Wow
I really pity you Americans.
Your kids slaughter each other in your schools and what's the typical reaction when your government finally see rationally that there's way too many guns sitting around?

"you can have my gun when you pry it out of my cold dead hands"

Your falling behind the rest of the world in morality, enlightenedment, ethics, rationality and just plain common sense!
If your so scared of your government that you feel the need to arm yourselves against them you live in a democracy! Do something about it! Go and vote at the next election for someone who has your rights in mind someone you feel you can trust!

You've let the terrorists win by sowing mistrust, making you feel unsafe, living in fear behind your doors with a loaded gun...that's no way to live
That's what they wanted and you gave it to them. Blood in the water and the sharks will come.

Don't live in fear you don't need a gun to be free.
use your voice, use your vote, create a better life for your children.
One where they don't have to walk through a metal detector to get into school.

Your statement is completely accurate about the US citizens mistrust of our government and it's elected officials.

However, your suggested solution to vote for more trustworthy politicians, whom operate "for the people", is not an option at this time.

We have allowed the corruption and deceit to go on far too long. The hole we have dug for ourselves is so deep that any vote-worthy candidate is quickly snuffed out and never has a chance.

We are brainwashed into thinking that it is our duty to vote for the "lesser of 2 (or 3, or 4) evils" and by not voting it means that you simply do not care. I do care, but refuse to vote for any degree of evil.

Sorry for getting off topic. I am one fourth Native and I strongly support any attention given regarding the plight of the American Indian, while at the same time bringing light to the disfunctional state of our nation. There are huge amounts of people that completely trust our gvrnmnt simply because they have no reason not to.

Something as simple as a message being read on a billboard can lead into ones opportunity to "Deny Ignorance".

reply to post by Rezlooper


Didn't the white "colonists" supply the native americans with the guns in the first place? I'm pretty sure they did. I don't find that sign offensive.

It's misleading of course, because no one in a position of actual power is calling for gun confiscation. But who am I to interject facts into a gun thread.

But yeah, I don't find it offensive, it's actually rather accurate, if you actually allow your ELECTED officials to confiscate your weapons, tyranny is only a few steps away.

Then again, if you are that convinced that your government is out to get you, only awaiting a single gun law to pass before rounding you up and exterminating you, well. i don't know what to say about that.

Unplug from the internet for a little bit and get some perspective. Go talk to some of your local cops. Sure, there's always a douche on the force, but there's always several really good people, doing honest work. We've all heard of those experiments where an authority figure tells you to do something horrible, and you are likely to do it, that's more than likely how the holocaust was able to take place.

Actually, come to think of it, this billboard would be better if it wasn't the natives, it's not really the same thing. Communist nations who did this would probably be more to the point examples.

Anyhoo... I wouldn't trade my gun over for a nifty looking blanket, that didn't work out so well last time.

1/3 Algonquin Canadian and I must say that the Native Canadians did not fare much better here in Canada. I am not offended by the bilboards either, it just represents the simple truth !!!

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by Rezlooper

 

Didn't the white "colonists" supply the native americans with the guns in the first place? I'm pretty sure they did. I don't find that sign offensive.

It's misleading of course, because no one in a position of actual power is calling for gun confiscation. But who am I to interject facts into a gun thread.

But yeah, I don't find it offensive, it's actually rather accurate, if you actually allow your ELECTED officials to confiscate your weapons, tyranny is only a few steps away.

Then again, if you are that convinced that your government is out to get you, only awaiting a single gun law to pass before rounding you up and exterminating you, well. i don't know what to say about that.

Unplug from the internet for a little bit and get some perspective. Go talk to some of your local cops. Sure, there's always a douche on the force, but there's always several really good people, doing honest work. We've all heard of those experiments where an authority figure tells you to do something horrible, and you are likely to do it, that's more than likely how the holocaust was able to take place.

Actually, come to think of it, this billboard would be better if it wasn't the natives, it's not really the same thing. Communist nations who did this would probably be more to the point examples.

Anyhoo... I wouldn't trade my gun over for a nifty looking blanket, that didn't work out so well last time.

Falty riffles, elongated musquets, missing fireing pins, crooked barrels...Yeah...they gave them firearms in exchange for furs !!! Call it a real bad deal for the Natives though !

Originally posted by okrian
So were the founders on the good side or the bad side here? Cause they are the ones who wrote these laws that you cling to (well, a couple of them anyway). Yet you all (who are in love with this billboard) seem to also, at this point, be painting them in a negative light also. If they are wrong in decimating the Native American population, bringing greed, deceptiveness, rape, pillaging, and seriously destructive war and genocide (well, and slavery, female subjugation, etc), then who is to say that they made all the best decisions when writing the laws at that time?

Quite simply because of what they were trying to accomplish. A minimally intrusive and controlling federal govt, with 3 branches that could and should limit each other's powers. There is also a heavy emphasis on individual freedoms and rights.

Your painting of them as greedy, deceptive etc etc is all one sided, and as any intelligent individual knows there is a yin-yang in nature...You paint them as the embodiment of evil, and yet the truth is they were humans much as we are, capable of good as well as bad.

They had a noble vision and designed a govt to enact that noble vision. Unfortunately that vision has been twisted and distorted into becoming something totally different. Hence: our govt today. Today our federal govt has become something that our founding fathers would, no doubt, believe to embody the excesses they were attempting to prevent.

reply to post by Rezlooper


You disparage US gov't & England...move to Canada? No, wait, scratch that.

The US gov't has flaws but you're lucky your gov't doesn't look at their common people with disdain.

Or do you want a religion based gov't or maybe no gov't at all?

What do you want? What do you propose to do about it all?

Do you just want to complain?

Originally posted by Rezlooper

Obviously I made a type O, Ethics vs. Ethnics.

OK...

Originally posted by Rezlooper
And, who do you speak for? Do you speak for the professor?

I speak for myself...and I quoted the professor..which you failed to do for obvious reasons...what is confusing about that?

Originally posted by Rezlooper
Are you saying that she isn't a liberal Obama supporting gun control advocate? I don't know her or what her actual politics is

That is strange...cuz in your OP you claimed to know her politics exactly???

Originally posted by Rezlooper
Obviously, this professor is a liberal anti-gun Obama supporter who would rather see the guns taken away.

Originally posted by Rezlooper
but I do know (especially now after reading through all the responses in this thread) that Natives are not offended by this billboard. There is only one Native out of the many on here that said they were offended by the billboard. And she attempts to speak for all Natives by saying it's offensive to us when in fact we don't find it offensive at all and a huge majority of us do support the message of this billboard.

I would caution you from drawing conclusions about the Native American community at large dependant on the responses to a thread you created on an anonymous conspiracy site. You could be Japanese for all anyone knows.

More to the point, those that created this Billboard also did so anonymously...and however valid or not the message...it is not appropriate for anonymous idealogues to use the Native American plight as a culture wars prop. Just my 2 cents.



Pro-gun billboards in Colorado spark outrage among Native Americans

Originally posted by Galvatron

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by Galvatron
reply to post by neo96

 

So why were the actual military engagements not so one-sided? As previous mentioned there was a lot more going on than a difference in armament. If you look at photos of native Americans in the 1870s, almost all had rifles.

Did they have any ammunition factories or rifle factories?

Who won?

When, in recent history, has any armed group successfully defended themselves successfully against armed forces of Federal, State or Local government using personal weapons?

When, in recent history have similar armed groups unsuccessfully attempted to do, resulting in their obliteration?

Are Black Panthers & LA gangs in 1992 a good example of militias exploiting their rights against government oppression?

edit on 1-5-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-5-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

Funny enough, the LA riots were comprised of people, who for the most part, didn't have firearms. Look at the korea town stuff on the LA riots. The ethnic Korean population was relatively well armed and subsequently their stores weren't looted or burned to the ground.

"has any armed group successfully defended themselves successfully against armed forces of Federal, State or Local government using personal weapons?"

Read about the battle of Athens Tennessee. en.wikipedia.org...
A movie was even made about it.

What about Libyan's freeing themselves from Qaddafi? What about Syrians? What about Northern Ireland? Just because it doesn't happen often in the US doesn't invalidate the point that an armed society presents a credible threat of force against its government.

Libya: heavy military weapons against a weak central government, with defecting army units, supported externally with arms sales and intelligence and air support from NATO.

Syria: heavy military weapons against a weak central government, with defecting army units, major external (qatar) financial and military support. Rebels not necessarily winning, country destroyed.

Northern Ireland: IRA lost. Dead or in prison, and Northern Ireland remains part of U.K. and will remain so for centuries.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by Rezlooper

Obviously I made a type O, Ethics vs. Ethnics.

OK...

Originally posted by Rezlooper
And, who do you speak for? Do you speak for the professor?

I speak for myself...and I quoted the professor..which you failed to do for obvious reasons...what is confusing about that?

Originally posted by Rezlooper
Are you saying that she isn't a liberal Obama supporting gun control advocate? I don't know her or what her actual politics is

That is strange...cuz in your OP you claimed to know her politics exactly???

Originally posted by Rezlooper
Obviously, this professor is a liberal anti-gun Obama supporter who would rather see the guns taken away.

Originally posted by Rezlooper
but I do know (especially now after reading through all the responses in this thread) that Natives are not offended by this billboard. There is only one Native out of the many on here that said they were offended by the billboard. And she attempts to speak for all Natives by saying it's offensive to us when in fact we don't find it offensive at all and a huge majority of us do support the message of this billboard.

I would caution you from drawing conclusions about the Native American community at large dependant on the responses to a thread you created on an anonymous conspiracy site. You could be Japanese for all anyone knows.

More to the point, those that created this Billboard also did so anonymously...and however valid or not the message...it is not appropriate for anonymous idealogues to use the Native American plight as a culture wars prop. Just my 2 cents.



Pro-gun billboards in Colorado spark outrage among Native Americans

edit on 2-5-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

Once again, you link to an article with a very misleading headline that interviews two ladies who are supposedly outraged by the billboard but Native Americans are not outraged. But of course, as you say about what serves my purpose, this headline serves yours!

And I'll not have you telling me that I can't draw conclusions about what the Native American community feels. I am a Native News editor who's worked throughout Ojibwe tribes of northern WI, born and raised here for the last 40 years. I think I'm very qualified to speak on their behalf, much more than yourself. But oh yeah, I may be a Japanese dude with the name REZlooper!

Also, this billboard is appropriate because it sends a clear message on behalf of Native Americans..."We trusted the government...look what happened to us!"

Originally posted by Rezlooper


Also, this billboard is appropriate because it sends a clear message on behalf of Native Americans..."We trusted the government...look what happened to us!"

That right there is the point. Should be in BOLD, Italics and HIGHLIGHTED RED for all to see and take in.


Yes, yes they did trust the Govt, and look what happened to them.

I live in Colorado and when this story broke on the news it was pathetic. They found these two Native American women and interviewed them and they went on and on about how offensive it was to them - how hurtful and how they should be taken down - and the reporters were all so sympathetic to how hurtful that must be to them. Blah. No one with a different opinion was interviewed. Then the reporter talked about how a contract had been signed for 2 or 4 more weeks (I can't remember which) and how we would all have to put up with the signs until then as legally there is nothing that could be done... sigh.

Originally posted by Rezlooper
Also, this billboard is appropriate because it sends a clear message on behalf of Native Americans

That is PRECISELY WHY it is INAPPROPRIATE...Because THE BILLBOARD SPONSORS ARE ANONYMOUS...and most likely are the NRA....Using Native Americans as a prop, like a mascot at a Redskins Game, but worse.

It does NOT speak on behalf of Native Americans...it speaks on behalf of whatever cowards refuse to claim the billboard.

Awesome thread, it is a shame that Native Americans do not get much recognition in the United States. Public education hardly mentions what happened in their history books. Can anyone here recall having any type of Native American history month, week, or day that is set in remembrance of those that were wronged?

As a Shawnee by blood, yet registered Cherokee by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, I am not offended in any way by this billboard.

I just produced, wrote, and recorded a track that is fitting to this topic and after reading through this thread I knew I had to upload it to share.



I got a great spoken word for this to. If anyone would like to hear it, I can upload it by request.

Something that is disturbing to me though, is the recent results I got from participating in an Implicit Attitude Test in my social psychology class this semester.

The test was to see if you associate White with American or Foreign and Native with American or Foreign.

I have been meaning to create a thread on this subject as the results showed how everyone who has taken this test nationally scored. 20% Moderate and 20% strong automatic association of White with American and Native with Foreign.

The inverse of this accounted for only 14%. There within itself is a problem.

Originally posted by Indigo5
I would caution you from drawing conclusions about the Native American community at large dependant on the responses to a thread you created on an anonymous conspiracy site. You could be Japanese for all anyone knows.

More to the point, those that created this Billboard also did so anonymously...and however valid or not the message...it is not appropriate for anonymous idealogues to use the Native American plight as a culture wars prop. Just my 2 cents.

I know your post wasn't addressed to me, but a couple of things in it that stick out that I would like to respectfully address. Rezlooper has been around here a while; he's a well-known poster and he's Native, not Japanese. The conclusions drawn are probably not *only* from this site but likely are also based on comments posted beneath multiple articles about the billboard; comments made by many Native Americans who express full approval of the billboard. WE know what happened to US and, truly, really, pinkie-swear, we'd like to see it NOT happen to anyone else. If using a photo of our ancestors (or even if it happened to be a black & white photo of someone depicting ancestors) drives the point home, then the majority of us are in favor of that. The point the billboard makes is a very, very valid one.

Secondly, I do not understand the outrage (of a few mostly non-Natives) about the use of the photo when the majority of Americans neither think about nor care less about sports teams being named 'Redskins' and 'Braves' and multiple geographic locations being named things like Squaw Valley, Squaw Hill, Squaw Peak, etc. Nor do most mind that we are referred to as "...merciless Indian Savages" in the Declaration of Independence AND are still referred to as 'savages' even today (see post made earlier in this thread). THOSE things are far, far more offensive than that billboard ever could be.

Lastly, did it ever occur to any of billboard's objectors that the 'anonymous ideologues' just might be Native Americans? Ya never know!

reply to post by Indigo5


Your statement and I quote:

That is PRECISELY WHY it is INAPPROPRIATE...Because THE BILLBOARD SPONSORS ARE ANONYMOUS...and most likely are the NRA....Using Native Americans as a prop, like a mascot at a Redskins Game, but worse.

It is not exactly anonymous because the article states:

Matt Wells, and accountant with Lamar Advertising in Denver, told the Associated Press that a group of local residents who wish to remain anonymous purchased the space.

usnews.nbcnews.com...

Sense when is it necessary for private citizens as Local Residents like these two gentlemen from the advertising company stated they were, need to post their names.

Are you in the same frame of mind as this Sheriff in Florida,

Bradshaw is readying a hotline and is planning public service announcements to encourage local citizens to report their neighbors, friends or family members if they fear they could harm themselves or others.

“We want people to call us if the guy down the street says he hates the government, hates the mayor and he’s gonna shoot him,” Bradshaw said. “What does it hurt to have somebody knock on a door and ask, ‘Hey, is everything OK?’ ”

Do you want to call his Hot Line and Rat Off these people because they don't appear to like or trust our Government?
www.mypalmbeachpost.com...

What business is it of yours who paid for that Great Billboard?

reply to post by IntrinsicMotivation


Wow. Lots in your post to consider. The music is not my style (i'm old *L*), but i would really like to read your lyrics as i had trouble making them out in the song. Would you be willing to U2U them to me, please, in order that I might gain more appreciation for your song?

I wish you would start a thread on the results of the test from your social psychology class as those are some very interesting results and would speak heavily to prevalent attitudes and difficulties.

As to the great spoken word you have on this, if you feel it is not appropriate to the thread i would, again, be grateful to receive it via U2U.

You honored us with your song. Neahw and Wado!

reply to post by SeesFar


I will try and get it put together within this next week, I am wrapping up my classes, got a couple finals left to take.

I am thinking that the thread will be put under the Social issues section.

I will shoot you a u2u when its done.

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by Galvatron

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by Galvatron
reply to post by neo96

 

So why were the actual military engagements not so one-sided? As previous mentioned there was a lot more going on than a difference in armament. If you look at photos of native Americans in the 1870s, almost all had rifles.

Did they have any ammunition factories or rifle factories?

Who won?

When, in recent history, has any armed group successfully defended themselves successfully against armed forces of Federal, State or Local government using personal weapons?

When, in recent history have similar armed groups unsuccessfully attempted to do, resulting in their obliteration?

Are Black Panthers & LA gangs in 1992 a good example of militias exploiting their rights against government oppression?

edit on 1-5-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-5-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

Funny enough, the LA riots were comprised of people, who for the most part, didn't have firearms. Look at the korea town stuff on the LA riots. The ethnic Korean population was relatively well armed and subsequently their stores weren't looted or burned to the ground.

"has any armed group successfully defended themselves successfully against armed forces of Federal, State or Local government using personal weapons?"

Read about the battle of Athens Tennessee. en.wikipedia.org...
A movie was even made about it.

What about Libyan's freeing themselves from Qaddafi? What about Syrians? What about Northern Ireland? Just because it doesn't happen often in the US doesn't invalidate the point that an armed society presents a credible threat of force against its government.

Libya: heavy military weapons against a weak central government, with defecting army units, supported externally with arms sales and intelligence and air support from NATO.

Syria: heavy military weapons against a weak central government, with defecting army units, major external (qatar) financial and military support. Rebels not necessarily winning, country destroyed.

Northern Ireland: IRA lost. Dead or in prison, and Northern Ireland remains part of U.K. and will remain so for centuries.

edit on 2-5-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

You missed the point. I mentioned earlier in this thread that explains pretty much all of your points. And I agree with them, especially the defecting military and external support. The point is it gives people the capability to start a meaningful resistance. Read the whole thread. You'll find that I agree with most of the points you just made.

reply to post by bbracken677

Of course there is a gray area to everything. I would never deny that. It's not my stance to argue, and actually believe I was arguing against that. I was pointing out the rather sticky dichotomy inherent to those that claim (in a very black-and-white way) that government is inherently bad, yet cling hard to a document (again, just some parts of it) written hundreds of years ago (by a government). Especially knowing the narrow and extremely slighted views of the founders during that era (I'm not really blaming them, they were products of the times). But let's be clear that they didn't actually offer freedom (to the native americans or countless other groups), or just how limited that freedom was (and designed so poorly that the ripple effects are tragically apparent today).

What surprises me most is that the pro-gun crowd is oddly siding with the native americans. Especially since there is no group of people that have more of a right to take this country back (and it would never happen unless by force) . Anyone who investigates history in any small fashion cannot deny that this land was taken by europeans by force and/or coercion. In regards to this, there is little gray area.