300,000,000 Is Not Enough

Discussion in 'History' started by Flanders, Jan 11, 2013.

  1. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,574
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,582
    Approximately 300,000,000 guns is the accepted number of guns in America. I don’t know how it breaks down, or how many of those guns the government has targeted for confiscation, but 300,000,000 is not enough guns in civilian hands. Here’s why:

    I’m pretty sure the government has the names of every member of the NRA, Gun Owners of America, gun clubs, and so on. That means the government knows where many of those 300,000,000 guns are located, while the Communists seized the opportunity to go all out for gun registration because of the school shooting in Connecticut. My point: It’s the number of guns the government does not know about from this day forward that count the most.

    Incidentally, if you are not a member of the NRA, but support that organization’s efforts, I would advise you to make anonymous contributions.

    Now, let me admit that I never knew Russians were so well-armed in Tsarist Russia:


    Nor did I know that it was the Communists who confiscated the guns leaving the Russian people in a position of bringing a knife to a gunfight.

    Notice how Soviet Communists lied just as Hussein & Company are lying today. The difference is that American Socialists prefer brainwashing over posters. Listen to a young Eric Holder:

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nM0asnCXD0&feature=player_embedded]Eric Holder "Brainwash People" about Guns - YouTube[/ame]​

    Rather than believe anybody in Hussein’s administration put your trust in a few words by Andrew Napolitano:

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MpYTzvY1ZFs]Judge Napolitano wants to know... - YouTube[/ame]​
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2013
  2. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,574
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,582
    After reading this I got to thinking about the role journalism played in the events cited in the OP:

    It wasn’t long before I realized that no matter which role print press played in Tsarist Russia —— newspapers did not have the influence, or trust, our talking heads exercise, yet a majority of Americans know better than to hand over their guns to a Communist government that is afraid well-armed Americans will do the same thing to them that Communists do to everybody else.

    This excerpt opens the article I linked in the OP:


    I’m not certain what a comparison between our media and the one that helped bring the Communists to power in Russia means. I do know that the so-called intellectuals in Europe and in America supported the Communists.

    As a matter of fact American millionaires funded a large part of the Russian Revolutions. I don’t recall ever reading what intellectuals and millionaires thought about Communists disarming the Russian people. That’s a line of inquiry historians might want to look into.

    Oh well, 1 million words cannot say it as effectively as this picture:


    [​IMG]
     
  3. Moonglow
    Online

    Moonglow Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    81,984
    Thanks Received:
    8,036
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    sw mizzouri
    Ratings:
    +29,608
    SO now you are comparing the Bolsheviks to modern America?
     
  4. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,574
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,582
    To Moonglow: Bolshevik is a group, or an extreme radical. America is a country. Communists are the same in every generation. That’s the comparison you cleverly avoid.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2013
  5. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,940
    Thanks Received:
    5,212
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,683
    No offense to you OP, but I get pissed when I hear gun grabbers call us "Civilians". It's like were a lower class or something.

    We are the Sovereign, not the "civilian".

    And they are the Servants, not the "authorities".

    They're supposed to work for us.

    Remember that.
     
  6. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,574
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,582
    To Mad Scientist: I agree. Good point though. I should have been more precise.

    My distinction was meant to identify armed government forces AND THEIR ARMED SUPPORTERS as opposed to armed non-government forces. With my distinction in mind ask yourself who will command the loyalty of the people Hussein wants to arm:


    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=UHmecy94z-M]Obama calls for civilian paramilitary force - YouTube[/ame]​

    Incidentally, funding for Hussein’s CIVILIAN PARAMILITARY FORCE is in the Healthcare bill.

    Basically, government forces consists of two groups while the people who would fight to protect the Constitution and their own liberties are one group.
     
  7. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,574
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,582
    Hussein is persistent if nothing else. He started out trying to set himself as the nation’s spiritual leader. Lie after lie after lie turned that into a joke. Now, he’s back at it on the graves of 20 murdered children. It pains me to post a video of this guy since I can’t stand to look at him on TV, but you have to listen to him in this brief video to get a sense of his duplicity:

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTcF17Je6Co&feature=player_detailpage]Obama: If we can 'save even one child' we should - YouTube[/ame]​

    The filthy sneak is all about politics. “Stronger background checks” would make some sense if it kept guns out of the hands of criminals and the criminally insane. It won’t. What it does do is help the government identify gun purchasers. Background checks ain’t as good as registering all guns, but it accomplishes the same thing with new gun purchases. Once the government does a background check the law-abiding American is tagged as a gun owner forever. It’s a pure political move that works for the government’s agenda.

    Hussein’s delusions about his own infallibility makes him think he can get around the 2nd Amendment by pretending more gun controls is about children. Concern for children is coming from a guy who heads the party of infanticide, assisted suicide, population controls, euthanasia, and death panels. Now he wants everybody to believe he cares about saving children. The only thing he cares about is trying to win the House in 2014 on the strength of gun controls. His remark about members of Congress examining their consciences prove it.

    The man is really sick if he is waiting for recommendations from Biden. After the all-time baby butcher, Ted Kennedy, died, Biden inherited the title of the worst piece of Democrat excrement in the Senate. Oh yeah! By all means let’s hear from Biden.

    There is a light at the end of the tunnel. It’s very far away but at least it’s there:


    There isn’t much chance a Senate trial will remove Hussein. It would if Democrats took the advice of their spiritual leader and examined their consciences. Like I said, the light at the end of the tunnel is very far away if anyone expects Democrats to put the Constitution ahead of party politics.
     

Share This Page