Founding Fathers & Registering Guns

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Flanders, Dec 22, 2012.

  1. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,556
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,580
    The latest word from Liberaldom is: Americans must finally have a dialogue about gun violence. As far as I know —— Democrats have been talking about it since JFK, RFK, and MLK were assassinated. No matter. I’ll take their recent calls for dialogue to mean they want to hear from me, too. So here goes.

    Were I to list all of the articles I’ve read about gun control in the past fifty years you won’t find one elected Democrat calling for repealing the Second Amendment. In fact, if you analyze their double-talk you will see they say they love the Second Amendment —— they just want to find a way to overturn it without repealing it.

    What is new about the tragedy in Connecticut?

    For one thing that sack of spit in the White House saw the murders of 20 young children as an opportunity to breathe new life into his failed attempt to set himself up as the nation’s spiritual leader. More to the point, Hussein & Company think those murdered children provided the momentum to make Communist morality the nation’s morality; i.e., disarm law-abiding Americans so Socialists can dictate all behavior without looking down the barrel of a rifle.

    Here’s the problem. The full weight of the government cannot protect anyone from an emotional cripple or a sick mind; so how are Americans going to protect themselves from a plethora of sick minds in government? Let’s elaborate on that one a bit.

    Media stooges would have Americans believe they cannot protect themselves from a government determined to gather up the guns anyway. That’s not true for several reasons.

    1. Freedom-loving gun-owning Americans far outnumber government forces. The government can probably get away with confiscating a few guns one at a time until individual Americans see the threat to themselves and come together defending one other.

    2. People living in brutal dictatorships manage to overthrow their governments; so there is not a chance any government can enslave a well-armed population willing to fight for itself.

    3. Some Americans believe they need guns to protect against criminals. Many others believe they need guns to protect themselves from government which is what the Founding Fathers intended. There is truth in both beliefs. There is also a powerful unspoken reason for gun ownership. You might die fighting criminals, or die fighting to keep your freedoms, but you won’t die a victim.

    4. The government can only confiscate those guns it knows about. I guarantee this latest push for gun control will settle down on registration. Democrats already said they want assault rifles registered if not banned. The confusion is compounded when folks like Bill O’Reilly and Charles Krauthammer say they do NOT want to mess with the Second Amendment —— then in the next breath say they want assault rifles registered with the FBI. The video even shows a drawing of an assault rifle for effect:



    As far as I’m concerned law-abiding Americans can own bazookas without registering them. I rest my case on this alone: Had the Founders thought about Americans registering their guns I’m positive they would have said something about it after they stopped laughing.

    Gun control racism

    Blacks are using guns to kill a lot of blacks, yet the only time Democrat gun control mavens come out of the woodwork en masse is when whites get shot. That means one of two things.

    1. Whites need more saving than blacks.

    2. Hussein & Company do not want to disarm blacks.

    I lean towards #2 because Hussein is, and always has been, a true believer in black liberation theology with a strong dose of pure communism mixed in. His background and associations make me doubt he shed genuine tears over the deaths of white children. My guess is that he is only sorry Adam Lanza was white. According to black supremacists —— blacks who preach the extermination of the white race would have been proud of a black man killing 20 white children.

    Irrespective of the clever sophistry black Christian leaders preach from their pulpits, and their tax dollar chairs in the academy, black liberation means blacks exterminating or enslaving the white race. Black liberation does not mean a physical separation from the people blacks hate. The way Communists worked it out killing or enslaving whites is the only Christian way to liberate blacks. If screwball thinking like that does not give you a migraine nothing will.

    In the same vein I’ve always thought blacks harbor an intense hatred of Jews because Moses never told the Egyptians they all have to live together. Hell, Moses could not get the Jews out of Egypt fast enough. Conversely, the Hebrew Slave Chorus from Verdi’s Nabucco long for a return to their homeland; something I never heard from black liberation advocates.

    Parenthetically, I’ve posted this Youtube in other threads. I’m posting it here because I cannot shake the feeling that blacks and whites see liberty differently:


    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=kTo0Inuvlxk]Nana Mouskouri - Song for Liberty - YouTube[/ame] ​

    I’ll close with a warning to all gun owners. If you belong to the NRA, or to the Gun Owners of America, or to a local gun club, the government already has your name and address. If your name is on a list of gun owners of any kind the government has that list. Whether or not the government knows how many guns you own is incidental.
     
  2. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,556
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,580
    Can you believe the head of the infanticide party:

    Hussein’s full weight means the full weight of the Left's gun control agenda. I don’t care what he says now, I stand by the comments I made about him in the OP.

    In addition to Hussein’s B.S. every other piece of Democrat excrement is trying to cash-in on the bodies of 20 murdered children. In their sick minds those kids are nothing more than a good crisis. In short: Never let a good crisis go to waste.

    And unless I missed it Hussein & Company never called the murders in Sandy Hook a hate crime. That makes me wonder who is the sicker —— the criminals, the characters who promote hate crime legislation, or the journalists who refuse to call out that lying sneak on anything. Worse still, they are helping him jumpstart his failed attempt to become the nation’s spiritual leader.

    Needless to say, race riots, civil unrest, and raucous behavior in general, do not qualify as hate crimes, while the occasional church bombing does meet the test.

    Today’s hate crime logic evolved from buckshot reactions to crimes. One shot hits everyone except the INDIVIDUALS who commit the crimes.

    Media reporting had a lot to do with classifying certain crimes as hate crimes. In the process of defining hate crimes, the MSM never bothered to explain how it is a hate crime when a person of one race murders a person of another race, but when the same man later kills a person of his own race it is simple murder. I doubt if victims buy into that fine distinction.

    In addition to corkscrew logic, rank and file liberals do not want to know how many stories the MSM suppresses when it is about hate crime violence done by left-wing extremists.

    Choosy reporting is called the Gun Control Method of Reporting; i.e., only report those stories that appeal to the loony Left’s twisted view of the world. Simply put: Never report on anyone saving their own life with a gun, and never, never, tell the truth about anything when that truth disturbs the Left’s comfortable belief in socialism’s moral superiority.

    I do believe that the Gun Control Method of Reporting is taught in journalism schools because so many journalists swear by it.
     
  3. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,556
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,580
    One Montana lawmaker is:

    State Rep. O’Neil is doing the unthinkable. The last thing Democrats want is to change the Constitution. They know very well repealing the Second Amendment is not possible. In short: They are having enough trouble abolishing the Second Amendment without repealing it. They also know that any amendments strengthening the Second Amendment would put an end their backdoor machinations.

    Make no mistake about this. Di Fi’s “proposals” in the next excerpt is a smokescreen:


    By dredging up the same old garbage Di Fi is angling for a compromise. A compromise that would give the federal government everything it wants short of repealing the Second Amendment. This is what Di Fi is really after:

    Democrats are lying as they always do. The media is complicit in those lies.

    complicit (adjective)

    Associated with or participating in a questionable act or a crime; having complicity: newspapers complicit with the propaganda arm of a dictatorship.

    Feinstein can lie, twist, and spin on every talk show every day forever, but one fact cannot be denied:

    REGISTRATION IS THE FINAL STEP BEFORE CONFISCATION.

    Finally, Di Fi is clearly violating her oath of office; nevertheless the following ain’t going to happen:


    The full article contains a lot more good stuff:

     

Share This Page