Gun control protects criminals

[Bern80]

Oh I am so tired of this. You are so paranoid. Bottom line: If the elected leaders do things that the people don’t like, then the people will vote to have them replaced. The government might have to go to the extreme before people “wake up” but rest assured that if enough people are disappointed enough in our government, then the people will vote to have the leaders replaced. It all comes down to that.

I'm not paranoid at all. I think we're a ways of from tyranny. What I think is that your argument is a little silly. That if a government did have tyranncal machinations that their gonna go 'oh wait, this piece of paper says we can't do that'.

 

[godhelpus]

Do you people understand that the federal reserve bank is not a federal agency, but a private bank that charges interest for every dollar they print, when the government has the right to print money itself interest free. You need to understand that their are people behind the curtain that control both republicans and democrats. No president that is not approved of will be voted into office.

 

[Bern80]

Do you people understand that the federal reserve bank is not a federal agency, but a private bank that charges interest for every dollar they print, when the government has the right to print money itself interest free. You need to understand that their are people behind the curtain that control both republicans and democrats. No president that is not approved of will be voted into office.

Parts of your argument I agree with, parts like the conspiracy theories I don't. So just so I can brush up on said conspiracy theories what exactley does CFR stand for? google returned an awful lot of results.

 

[godhelpus]

council on foreign relations . they openly call for one world government. please watch "freedom to fascism" on you tube. great movie about the federal reserve and Cfr.

 

[mattskramer]

You need to understand that their are people behind the curtain that control both republicans and democrats. No president that is not approved of will be voted into office.

Jesse Ventura was elected into office as an Independent. Who approved of him? The people.

 

[godhelpus]

i said presidential canidate

 

[mattskramer]

i said presidential canidate

Your point is taken but I still disagree with your prediction. It is legally theoretically possible for an Independent candidate to will the presidency.

 

[godhelpus]

Your point is taken but I still disagree with your prediction. It is legally theoretically possible for an Independent candidate to will the presidency.

please just do one thing. go to google video or you tube, watch freedom to fascism , come back and tell me what you think.

 

[Diuretic]

"Gun control" doesn't mean banishing firearms.

Hitler was elected.

How many democracies have become dictatorships and how?

If you're only worried about the 2nd amendment being trashed then I suggest you cast your eyes a bit further and see how the others are going if you're worried about a nascent dictatorship.

 

[Gunny]

With the recent shootings at colleges the gun control lobby has stepped into full swing. How does disarming law abiding citizens stop violence? It leaves us helpless to defend our families against criminals who obtain their guns illegally and also leaves us helpless to defend ourselves against a rogue government. We are seeing scary signs today that our government does not have the best interests of the american people at heart. They seem to be anxious to disarm the public. Also no coincidence this latest shooting took place in Illinois (obama) and has connections to the v tech shooter . Cia disarm the people before martial law anyone? WAKE UP. i bet we see obama pushing gun control big time soon.

These would be the same people pretty-much who think being wary of terrorism is paranoia.

Fact: Criminals already don't obey the law. What's breaking one more by posessing firearms? It's a ridiculous argument to think that taking away the means of law-abiding citizens to legally purchase firearms is going to affect criminals in any way.

Well, except to empower them. They have nothing to fear from law abiding citizens in a disarmed society.

 

[Lookout]

With the recent shootings at colleges the gun control lobby has stepped into full swing. How does disarming law abiding citizens stop violence? It leaves us helpless to defend our families against criminals who obtain their guns illegally and also leaves us helpless to defend ourselves against a rogue government. We are seeing scary signs today that our government does not have the best interests of the american people at heart. They seem to be anxious to disarm the public. Also no coincidence this latest shooting took place in Illinois (obama) and has connections to the v tech shooter . Cia disarm the people before martial law anyone? WAKE UP. i bet we see obama pushing gun control big time soon.

Nice!!! You might want to check out www.infowars.com to see just how deep this rabbit hole goes.

Automobiles kill many more people everyday as aposed to all the school shootings combined and I don't see them banning automobiles!

Ciggeretts also kill many more and they aren't banning those.

Alcohol kills many more and they aren't banning that.

drowning in swimming pools kills many children daily and they aren't banning those either.

Electricity kills many people especially children and they aren't banning that.

Christmas trees catch fire and kill lots of people every year and they aren't banning them.

Our government kills many people on a daily basis and WE aren't banning that.

Knives, baseball bats, clubs, bricks, candleholders, aren't being banned.

Chairs, bottles, bar stools, rocks, and ropes aren't being banned.

The drugs our Government allows into the country are killing people by the thousands and they aren't banning that.

Mountain climbing, hiking, camping, aren't being banned.

And last of all...WORK kills more people than will ever be killed by a gun in a school EVER! and they aren't banning that!

 

[bennylava]

"We are seeing scary signs today that our government does not have the best interests of the american people at heart."

Now why are these the same people who say we're being unpatriotic for questioning the war in Iraq? This makes no sense to me.

What I was trying to say about coming up with industrialized democracies is that those countries have a stable method for the transferral of power. They are ruled by the rich, not by the military.
In countries that are unstable, where there is no oligarchy, taking guns away from the people can easily be a step towards a facist dictatorship. It doesn't HAVE to be a step towards that, but it can be.
We have a very entrenched system in this country of maintaining the status quo, and it has nothing to do with military might, it has to do with money. Those in power aren't going to upset the status quo unless the entire economy falls apart or there's some kind apocalypse and society completely and utterly breaks down in a Mad Max kind of way. Hey if you want to plan for that, be my guest, but I highly doubt under present circumstances that gun control is going to lead to the creation of a police state in the US. It would be very bad for the economy for one thing.

Let's say that the US government does decide to turn on it's people. Let's say the people who own rifles form a militia. What are they going to do against the US military? Seriously? I'm sorry but there's hardly a guerrilla army in the world that can stand up against the US military. Are you going to shoot your rifles at the bombs that are falling? What are you going to use against napalm and H bombs?

And along that same line of argument, do you think that individuals should be allowed to have grenade launchers and tanks? I mean just in case?

 

[godhelpus]

Personally, sure if you have proven a responsible citizen. What about blackwater. they are a private mercenary company working for our government. They have planes tanks jets everything. They operate internationally. What if they get big enough where they could overthrow our government?

 

[bennylava]

That is scary. But like I said, I doubt a militia with even automatic weapons would be a match.

 

[godhelpus]

In the case of gun violence, the new thesis will resemble a police state, where only the government will have guns

To further illustrate the point. America is a nation full of guns and guaranteed the right to own and bear arms, by the Constitution of the United States.

America cannot be taken over by the New World Order and their socialist/communist agenda, if Americans are armed, (this is the Thesis, an armed citizenry), therefore conditions must be created that will cause the American public to demand that their Constitutional right to bear arms be rescinded.

These created conditions are called "The Antithesis" by Hegel; it is called Crisis Creation by the CIA. In the case of an armed citizenry, the antithesis, or anti-thesis, is random, senseless and horrific murders using guns as the weapon.

When these two conditions, i.e.; an armed citizenry and horrific gun violence, exist simultaneously, public hysteria can be whipped up making the public demand that their Congressional representatives outlaw all guns. This is called "The Synthesis" by Hegel; or Crisis Solution by the CIA..

The "synthesis" then becomes the new "Thesis" for a new triad in Hegel's Dialectic. In the CIA's version of Hegel's Dialectic, the synthesis i.e.; the Crisis Solution brings about the new Thesis which is called: Crisis Control.

When Hitler wanted to wipe Jewish DNA from all of Europe, he created similar "antithesis" conditions which allowed the passage of similar anti gun laws. If all Jews in Germany had been armed, how easy would it have been for Hitler to send them to concentration camps? An armed citizenry can protect itself from its government.

Hitler's plan to eliminate all gun from German citizens was so successful that Connecticut Senator Thomas J. Dodd, father of today�s Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, used Hitler's model to frame the Gun Control Act of 1968.


The Government's Diabolic Plan Must Be Exposed
If this horrendous, diabolic plan to disarm America is not exposed, we can expect to see many more killings like the ones at Columbine. Each subsequent episode will be 100 times worse than the others. In Columbine, the real people behind the killings were sending a subtle message to anyone who can decipher it: The bombs that were found were not intended to go off. They were merely there to let "key people" in Congress know what will happen the next time. In other words, instead of 15 people being killed, hundreds, maybe even thousands will be killed.

More than likely, there was a "Control Officer" handling these boys. If an honest police unit uncovers him, he will be sacrificed, just like Tim McVeigh. He will be portrayed in the exact way the Tim McVeigh has been portrayed. In other words, he will be part of "The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy", he will be a "gun nut", he will belong to an Aryan Christian group.

Once you read how "Manchurian Candidates" are created, you will fully understand what is behind the incidents like the school killings, the crash of Ron Brown's plane, The North Hollywood bank robbery, the massacre at Luby's, and the killings at the Capitol, (Tom DeLay was the intended target at the Capitol. Maybe he would be interested in how his would be assassin was created.)

 

[Shogun]

Ruby ridge, I hear ya callin.

 

[bennylava]

guaranteed the right to own and bear arms, by the Constitution of the United States.

I'll give you that, if you agree that the arms we are guaranteed the right to bear are black powder rifles.

 

[godhelpus]

Its gonna be a sad day when the people in denial are led to the halliburton concentration camps. google it

 

[Bern80]

I'll give you that, if you agree that the arms we are guaranteed the right to bear are black powder rifles.

So you're contention is that the Constitution was written only with the era in which it was written in mind? Probably not, but that's reality of that statement.

 

[mattskramer]

So you're contention is that the Constitution was written only with the era in which it was written in mind? Probably not, but that's reality of that statement.

I like the way that each side (Democrat and Republican) likes to limit or expand different portions of the Bill of Rights to suit his agenda. Should we limit the Bill of Rights to encompass only that which the founding fathers intended? Yes or no?