American Politics and Government -- the never-ending struggle

[hungry101]

ehmmm i am sorry to burst your bubble but when the 2nd amendment was written, they had single shot muskets. Even with that the writers included "well regulated". When EVEN mentally ill people can get a hold of military assault style rifles, that is far, far from anything close to "well regulated". Military style weapons belong in the military. It is quite simple really.

?

Well Alyssa and when the first Amendment was written they didn't have the internet and 24 hours news channels. Sjhank - Go to Mexico. You would love it there. They have the toughest gun laws in the world and yet armed thugs roam the countryside terrorizing citizens. Sometimes the police and the armed drug gangs are one in the same. Private citizens are disarmed and can do nothing!

Alyssa - how about the story about the woman who hid in a crawl sapce from an intruder protecting her 9 year old twin girls with a gun. When the intruder broke into the crawl space she shot him 5 times. I listened to the 911 tape so I know it is true. But you won't hear that on the main stream media because they have an agenda.

 

[hungry101]

Hello Hungry,

I have never seen a minute of MSNBC. From everything I read it's too slanted to the Left, ie...it's got an obvious agenda.

I agree with you but watch the video. To their credit they uncovered this story. The shooting that Obama is trying to use as an excuse to take away your right to own a AR-15 was done with pistols! Does that not irk you?

Why is it pro-gun people have never posted one word of sympathy for the 20 children and 8 teachers who are DEAD!!! All you do is worry about how the bloodily massacred bodies might result in the loss of your guns. It's people like you who don't relate to the loss of human life, very young life, don't seem to care about the deaths after a horrendous tragedy, that are scary, who should not have guns. Those hyper-reactionary kooks who create conspiracy fantasies and threaten to kill people to keep their guns are exactly the paranoid unstable kind who should never have a gun.

Merlot please read this insult. I am very surprised to see this from you. Do you really believe this? I am a kook that should not have a gun? I have no felonies and I am a veteran and I pay about 50K/year in taxes. I should not be able to own a gun because it looks scary to you?

Meanwhile liberals bemoan the death penalty and guys are pulled off death row because they learned how to read. Oh boy! left leaning parole boards let killers walk and they kill again. And in the Peoples Republic of Taxachusetts payed 1MM$ to give a murderer a sex change. And he looks like a guy with a wig! Is this what we get for 1MM$?

So who are the "wrong people". You mean the honest, hard working, never committed a crime mother who avidly trained her son to handle the weapons properly and responsibly...you mean the mother of the monster. Doesn't work does it. Once the gun is sold it could fall into anyone's hands and that's the problem.

Why would she have a gun that wasn't locked in a safe? She was about to have him comitted.

The idea that the Founding Fathers always knew what they were talking about is a fallacy. Creating a Democracy was an experiment which the Founding Fathers could not know would work, or what were the best laws to have. If your argument is that Founding Fathers were infallible and every law is sacrosanct then we should still have slavery, there would be no equal protection under the law, women should not vote, indeed any man who does not own land should not vote. Obviously, there were critical flaws created by our Fathers like Mason in the Constitution or there would not have been 17 new Amendments added after it as written.

Sorry...I'll take Washington, Madison, Mason and Jefferson over Obama and Barny Frank and Dick Durbin any day. No comparison

Besides that, militias have been a very consistent failure as I have described in accurate detail. You guys get a hard-on owning a gun, but let someone point one at you and you go limp, and turn YELLOW.

Please read Washington's Crossing and read how farmers hounded the foraging parties of the British the winter of 1776 and 77. There are many examples of this. By the way why do we have so many good marksmen in the US military? Because are kids are weaned on guns. How the fuck do you know what happens to my dick when I put a gun in my hand? Bullshit! I get hard when I take a viagra.

You're absolutely right that the laws proposed are little more than "feel good legislation". But since confiscation of assault rifles is impossible the idea of ending production of such ammunition would be more effective.

Yes, lets ban all guns that are scary looking. Go ahead and ban ammo. I reload.

The Northeast was the engine that started the American Revolution, and that Revolution was fought for the right of self-government, NOT so anyone could own guns, 300,000,000 guns.

And your ancestors who stood at Lexington and Concord would be disgusted with the self loathing lot of do-gooders that occupies that part of the country now.
Please tell me - Who will be the next prison inmate to recieve a state funded sex change so he/she won't be depressed in prison?

And for the record I feel terrible about the kids. What kind of animal could target these children? One thing is for sure, he was an animal that craved attention from the media because he knew that he could garner more attention in death than he ever could during all his misearable life. This is why I say stop giving these murderers the stage. I don't want to see their face or know their names. I do not want to see 24/7 coverage of the massacres. I do not want to see interviews with neighbors or old school mates and I do not want to see a suicde note in print or watch the video they leave behind. But still, don't use this tragedy to infringe on my rights.

 

[Merlot]

Merlot please read this insult. I am very surprised to see this from you. Do you really believe this? I am a kook that should not have a gun?

I called "kooks" those who threaten to kill and create conspiracy theories to keep their guns. I didn't say it is you. Hope it isn't. But I get extremely angry when all I see is...I want my gun...and nothing about those who get killed by LEGALLY owned guns.

...the death penalty...death row...parole boards let killers walk and they kill again....Peoples Republic of Taxachusetts payed 1MM$...sex change.

None of this has anything to do with this issue. But I agree that sex change shit is pure insanity. "Peoples Republic of Taxachusetts"..now who has gone off the deep end.

Sorry...I'll take Washington, Madison, Mason and Jefferson over Obama and Barny Frank and Dick Durbin any day. No comparison

This is a silly. No comparison was made. You missed the point, or ignored it.

Please read Washington's Crossing and read how farmers hounded the foraging parties of the British the winter of 1776 and 77. There are many examples of this. By the way why do we have so many good marksmen in the US military? Because are kids are weaned on guns.

I've read more history of all kinds than you could imagine, and every major battle from Kadesh in 1274 BC to the present.

Your view of a successful militia is hounding foraging parties??? Laughable. A much better example on your part would have been how the farmers chased the British from Concord back to Boston in April 1775 or Bunker Hill in June of that year. Of course the British leadership at first was just plain stupid. But read about Washington's New York campaign of 1776 and you will see how disastrous a farmer army was, how the militia disgraced themselves in 1814 and Washington was burned, and most examples of militia action went similarly.

My nephew served two tours in Iraq. He became a top marksman without ever previously touching a gun. So I call BS on this weaning idea. The key is expert training, not daddy unless he had good training.

And your ancestors who stood at Lexington and Concord would be disgusted with the self loathing lot of do-gooders that occupies that part of the country now.

My ancestors were living between Montreal and Trois Rivieres at the time, and had fought for New France previously. But, you wrote nonsense anyway.

Hungry, in all honesty, your stereotyping of the Northeast is pathetic. I've owned a gun, many Democrats own guns, and the largest political view by far is to be Independent not Liberal. It's very rare that anyone would think of taking away all guns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Massachusetts#Party_registration

Massachusetts
Party Number of Voters Percentage
Democratic 1,528,974 36.48%
Republican 474,798 11.33%
Unaffiliated 2,162,840 51.61%
Minor Parties 24,295 0.58%

This is why I say stop giving these murderers the stage. I don't want to see their face or know their names. I do not want to see 24/7 coverage of the massacres. I do not want to see interviews with neighbors or old school mates and I do not want to see a suicde note in print or watch the video they leave behind. But still, don't use this tragedy to infringe on my rights.

The big lie is removing your or anyone's right to own a gun. I don't support that. I do support strict control of gun sales.

Well many people care about shooting death tragedies with legally owned guns, others run to create conspiracy theories to cover their butts.



Merlot

 

[Vercingentorix]

Hungry101,

We can only be thankful that people like Merlot are marginalized and are not taken seriously for their nutty positions. People who think only with their emotions and fail to take heed of history are doomed to repeat it. Merlot's comments lack the insight of really investigating the origins of the Constitution. The Constitution took literally years to write. Each and every word was carefully considered over a period of years. It wasn't a bunch of guys who got together one day and wrote something up. Merlot betrays his iqnorance on the Constitution's origins by his own comments. Sad when people speak from ignorance and emotionalism rather than common sense and facts.

What is not being mentioned in the discussion on guns are the roots of the 2nd Amendment. During the period between Independance and the finalization of the Constitution the various colonies (States) made it clear that they distrusted a strong centralized government. They understood that too much power concentration has an effect of creating tyranny. This was the reason that power was not concentrateted in any one branch of the government or any centralized government. Melot somehow believes that Obama is the last word in what the US should do. Apparently Obama with his "King Complex" apparently believes the same.

I laugh when the Dems turn the discussion to hunting and sport as the sole reason for the public to own guns. Reading the 2nd Amendment and exploring its background it's clear that the various states were concerned of a strong centralized government. What isn't discussed is that gun ownership is part of the public's right to defend themselves from their very own tyranical government. No I'm not advocating armed insurrection. But the public and the individual states clearly should be able to defend themselves in the event that any portion of the centralized government becomes a tyrant. In today's world with the armed forces carrying automatic weapons it seems reasonable that citizens should be able to have semi-automatic weapons. In these days of "Political Correctness" neither the press, the government and/or politicians really want to discuss this point. The Dems would automatically challenge such a discussion as not in the realm of possibility or that our culture would make such an eventuality ridiculous. Thus the reason why this point is totally ignored in the media. The media & politicians come up with phrases like "you don't need more than two bullets to kill a deer". This iqnores that the public should be able to defend themselves against an army of a political dictator. You say it can't happen in a democratic type society or republic, IT DID. It was called the Third Reich. No, history has proven and our very own culture has confirmed that strong gun ownership is one of the keys to peaceful coexistence.

As to the 7 shot rule of NYC they talk about needing only two shots to take down a deer. Probably correct, but try that on a Georgia or Florida Wild Boar might land you in the hospital or dead. Same thing for Texas. I wouldn't be so stupid to go Boar Hunting with a 7 shot clip, unless I was ready to leave this world. For some reason Washington seems to believe that what's best for NYC or DC, must be right for all the other areas of the US.

Let me ask this question. You're a young woman living in NYC. A drug crazed man breaks into your home and you're forced to defend yourself. Do you want a gun with only 7 shots? A drug crazed man can't necessarily be taken down by 7 shots, especially by a nervous young woman who's not practiced in defending themselves. So what Andrew Cuomo has done has sentenced some young woman to die because he knows best how many bullets she needs to take down a 6 foot junkie looking to satisfy himself. I hope she's really lucky and an awful good shot. God knows the police would take how long to respond assuming they're called at all??

P.S. I'm told the Python Hunt goes well down in South Florida. Interesting that Neil Bortz (Conservative Commentator) and Senator Nelson (one of our most liberal lawmakers) both enjoyed the hunt. Nelson didn't bag a single one, no word on Bortz.

 

[Vercingentorix]

NEWS FROM VERMONT

Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution, as well as Vermont's own Constitution, very
carefully. His strict interpretation of these documents is popping
some eyeballs in New England and elsewhere.

Rep. Maslack recently proposed a bill to register "non-gun-owners"
and require them to pay a $500 annual fee to the state. Thus Vermont
would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of
going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not
owning a gun. Maslack read the "militia" phrase of the Second
Amendment not only as the right of the citizen to bear arms but also
as "a clear mandate to do so." He believes that universal gun
ownership was advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an
antidote to the government's "monopoly of force" as well as
protection from criminals. Vermont's constitution states explicitly
that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of
themselves and the State" and those persons who are "conscientiously
scrupulous of bearing arms" shall be required to "pay such
equivalent...." Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a
constitutional obligation to arm themselves, so that they are capable
of responding to "any situation that may arise."

Under Maslack's bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be
required to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and
driver's license number with the state. "There is a legitimate
government interest in knowing who is not prepared to defend the
state should they be asked to do so," Maslack says.

Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the
least restrictive laws of any state. This combination of plenty of guns
and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the
third lowest in the nation.

Why should gun owners have to pay taxes to support police protection
for people not wanting to own guns to defend themselves? Let them
contribute their fair share and pay their own way. Non-gun owners
require more police to protect them, and this fee should help pay for
their defense.

AND IN OTHER NEWS:

It seems like the Obama Phone Lady is unhappy with her Presidential Choice:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dLZuKGTZlEY

Too funny. Hey she might be a good date for Merlot!!!

I'm going to take my new LWRC AR-15 out for some fun tomorrow morning. I've got to select a scope.

 

[shijak]

Sjhank - Go to Mexico. You would love it there. They have the toughest gun laws in the world and yet armed thugs roam the countryside terrorizing citizens. Sometimes the police and the armed drug gangs are one in the same. Private citizens are disarmed and can do nothing!

Are you addressing me there? worst misspelling ever... I love how you completely refuse to acknowledge a major problem within the US: namely the annual death by gunfire rate within your country
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/15/graphic-31-days-later-u-s-gun-deaths-since-newtown/

can you read clearly? 919 people in the US have died due to gunshot in just 31 days since the Newtown disaster...many of them children!
Go to Mexico, go to Mexico...How about, have you ever gone to canada? I would guess yes since you bother posting in this forum. So you're saying the US has more in common with mexican corruption and violence than canadian values?

Really, private citizens in Mexico can do nothing? I don't want to seem uncaring, but this kind of event did not just happen overnight, many events for decades occured and this is the eventual result. The same as unlimited and uncontrolled proliferation of access to weapons and unwillingness to regulate results in 11000 annual deaths in the US, said estimate expected to grow...

Take a person who for decades smokes like a chimney, eats a ton of crap and drinks to excess. I have relatives who indulged in these vices, now they are in their sixties and are paying the price with poor health, limited mobility, and multiple prescriptions to keep their abused bodies going...I also have some other relatives who didn't follow that path and find themselves in excellent health while enjoying their retirement days, with many productive years ahead of them...

Rabid gun owners are the same as the first group of relatives: self-indulgent, selfish, short-sighted... unlimited gun access is like indulging in 3 Big Mac trios every day-- it might taste good and you get to have what you want despite what sensible people will tell you (your doctor as regards fast food, people who want less guns for the other)but eventually it will come back and bite them hard on the ass...

Except in this case, gluttony will only hurt the person in its grip. Out of control gun proliferation hurts the innocent around them as well as themselves...

Oh, look, while you took the time to read this, another person was shot dead in the last few minutes...

 

[shijak]

We can only be thankful that people like Merlot are marginalized and are not taken seriously for their nutty positions

Well I guess tha fact that over 60% of the US population wants something done in the wake of the Newtown tragedy, and that a small, very small percentage is against it, sheds a new light on your definition of ''marginalized''...

I would love to see you attempt to live in another country for a while, to see who really has the ''nutty positions''...

Love your continued comments about tyranny... Funny how in Canada we do not have such fears, and at the same time, gun ownership is very low... Perhaps it is actually the opposite of your way of thinking, people are more inclined to discuss and resolve conflicts when there is no fear that the guy sitting across your table will NOT shoot a slug in your brain?

Oh, and your ignoble comments towards Merlot have branded you as an unrepentant dick in my view...

 

[Merlot]

We can only be thankful that people like Merlot are marginalized and are not taken seriously for their nutty positions. People who think only with their emotions and fail to take heed of history are doomed to repeat it. Merlot's comments lack the insight of really investigating the origins of the Constitution. The Constitution took literally years to write. Each and every word was carefully considered over a period of years. It wasn't a bunch of guys who got together one day and wrote something up. Merlot betrays his iqnorance on the Constitution's origins by his own comments. Sad when people speak from ignorance and emotionalism rather than common sense and facts.

You CS are a laughing stock. In your wisdom and thorough research during the election you identified Fox News, Breibart, Rasmussen, and other such sources as the most valid, truthful, and accurate. Based on all of your faux wisdom you also predicted President Obama would go down in a monumental historic defeat and the Republicans would seize both Houses of Congress with large majorities. Your conclusions were obliterated in their total failure. You've failed to learn from your disastrously erring conclusions about what a real source looks like by continuing to use the same heavily biased self-serving sources that give you only what you want to see. Your four year campaign of anti-Obama bitterness brands you as a narrowly myopic polemic who has no intention of looking for the truth or facts...ie...intentionally entrenched ignorance manufactured to represent your narrow self-serving biases.

If each and every word was carefully considered and written in stone as you erroneously suggest then we would still be counting 3/5 of every black to be counted for representation purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives. At least I've actually read Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Roger Sherman, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay to know from their own minds, while you drown yourself in Right wing myopia.

If each and every word was carefully considered then why does the NRA, those holy upholders of the 2nd Amendment, intentionally omit the segment "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"? Because they fear those words give the government power to regulate and control arms. The words of the Constitution are not holy script in stone. Many of the Founding Fathers wanted power kept largely among the states, many others like Washington, Madison (called father of the Constitution), Adams, Hamilton, Jay wanted a strong Federal government to varying degrees. The point is the words and distribution of powers and rights were a compromise among Founding Fathers who often disagreed strongly how the Constitution and therefor the government should be formed, and in a compromise words are chosen that most can agree on. The words are NOT universal holy script, and anyone who has not read the Federalist Papers cannot completely understand the intentions behind the Constitution.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/hamilton/peopleevents/e_federalist.html

Every source you post CS shows you runaway from honesty and objectivity.

hungry, let me get this straight...; it is not about people who feel more safe with a gun, it is the people who actually feel that they can use their gun to protect them against a tyrannical government. Yes, this paranoia is a mental illness......

This is contradicted by the results of the Whiskey Rebellion culminating in 1794 in an armed rebellion against taxes in Pennsylvania. Then President George Washington himself led 13,000 men to break the opposition that had attacked the fortified home of a tax inspector with 500 armed men who then ran away and dissolved at just the word that Washington and his army were on the way. Clearly Washington did not support the basic principle Hungry and others keep claiming.

I don't mind if a family owns handguns and hunting rifles. Look, nowhere has anyone said they are taking away handguns or hunting rifles, but it's amazing how many people are translating it to taking away ALL of their guns.

The purpose is to create the big lie to instill fear and anger to motivate as many others as they can to think their way as possible. It's much like a witch hunt, claim to see all these phoney specters then attack based on the lies. They attack me, and I've said long ago I don't want all guns taken away. Just one more lie from them.

Cheers,

Merlot

 

[Merlot]

Merlot; it is obvious CS Martin (and the ones who share his opinion) wouldn't give a shit...

Hello Alyssa,

Remember that those like them are a minority on the edge. I've known plenty of people with fairly large gun collections who resent the government's gun policies but are still also stable and rational people. Then again, I've known a couple of impulsively aggressive and violent near psychotics with collections who should never be allowed near a gun...or a water pistol for that matter.

There's nothing wrong about having a pro-gun viewpoint. The wrong is being NUTS about it.

Cheers,

Merlot

 

[Merlot]

...he told me :"a hand gun wouldn't work to kill a running coyote..it takes several bullets to take him down,..."

Hmmm,

I think you might want to take the guy seriously. Just the other day I went to get into my car and barely escaped a pack of coyotes, I drove down to the Walmart and crossed paths with a bobcat, stopped for gas and a mountain lion had gotten into the station. Then...then I was leaving work and found a bear had staked out my car waiting for me to return. Boy what a time for me to forget my RPG anti-tank/bear rocket launcher. Was I ever embarrassed that I was so unprepared. Luckily I had a peanut butter jar I threw at the bear, and he went for it. Got home, and had to dodge the freaking man-eating moths at the door light. SCARY! :lol:

I think there's a more likely chance Monty Python's ferocious bunny will nibble at YOUR buns...hey well, I know I would anyway. BTW - do you like regular, light, or extra thick whipped cream.

Tell your friend 3,000,000 people die from mosquito bites every year, and they are very tough to hit with an assault rifle...ammunition gets expensive too. As for animal attacks, about 125 people a year are killed, and about 75% of those are by bees and dogs. The bigger predators account for about...ummmmm...3 human deaths each year. That's 3 by wild animals compared to 30,000 gun deaths per year in the U.S. Your pet is a much bigger threat than a wild animal. Heeeere kitty kitty.

http://historylist.wordpress.com/2008/05/29/human-deaths-in-the-us-caused-by-animals/

Average Number of Deaths per Year in the U.S
Bee/Wasp 53
Dogs 31
Spider 6.5
Rattlesnake 5.5
Mountain lion 1
Shark 1
Alligator 0.3
Bear 0.5
Scorpion 0.5
Centipede 0.5
Elephant 0.25
Wolf 0.1
Horse 20
Bull 3

So I guess these guys need government conspiracy theories to justify themselves, because the wild animal attack stats are ridiculously low. It just a matter of which excuse is more ridiculous. :crazy:

Regarding firearms against animal attacks, a relative of mine pilots the huge tankers between Alaska and Texas. While in Alaska he likes to pan for gold on unclaimed land. But there's a risk of attack by the big Brown Bears/Grizzlies. He always takes a weapon with him, but I was surprised about his choice. No shotguns, no assault weapons. Bears are intelligent hunters and they appear suddenly, so you are not likely to get a chance to unsling and fire an assault rifle. The best chance he and others say is with a very large caliber revolver carried in his belt, .45 or .50 with hollow points right at the head.

Happy sign hunting,

Merlot

 

[hungry101]

hungry, let me get this straight...; it is not about people who feel more safe with a gun, it is the people who actually feel that they can use their gun to protect them against a tyrannical government.

Alyssa those rebels in Syria I doing pretty good with their AKs.

Thomas Jefferson said “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” And this is the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

I do not foresee a day when I will have to take up arms against my government but crazier things have happened. Since you are of German ancestory I will remind you that the Germans enforced strong gun control laws in 1938. Henrich Himler said "German citizens that want to use firearms should join the SS or the SA. Ordinary citizens do not need guns as their having guns doesn't serve the state." If the Jews were armed they would of had a fighting chance. Look at the Warsaw Gehttos. The italians and the Japanense also enforced strict gun control. Cuba has strict gun control. It has always been a first step to tyranny so don't tell me it will never happen here. (remember the internment camps in WWII?)

Do you think that the crooks in New York are going to obey the new law? When they break into your house will they use a 7 round magazine? This is insane. The good guys will respect the law and the bad guys sadly will not. Do you think seven 9mm rounds in a magazine is enough to neutralize 2 or 3 bad guys. Think again.

Your comments about coyote hunting and semi automatic rifles demonstrate that you do not spend a lot of time around firearms or outside of the city. Browning BARs and Remington 742 and 7400s have been very popular sporting rifles in the USA and have killed a lot of deer. A 742 in 30-06 was my first deer hunting rifle that I bought with my own money. Before that I borrowed surplus 7.7 rifle from my dad. All of these rifles are under consideration for being banned.

As Larry Elder said, "A woman who demands further gun control legislation is like a chicken who roots for Colonel Sanders."

Good night Alyssa

 

[Red Paul]

It seems like the Obama Phone Lady is unhappy with her Presidential Choice:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dLZuKGTZlEY

That lady is not well informed. There's no such thing as an "Obama phone." People get free cell phones under a program started by the first Bush. (Full story here.)

 

[Merlot]

Please, i don't need any kind of reminder about my history ....talking about the second world war in this thread is like using McDonald to justify you are fat..

My father was one of those Arian freaks and he made me read soooo many book about the second world war...and there are many opinions about why did germans lose WW2.

Well,

Hundreds of reasons:

Hitler promised the military not to make war until 1944 or 1945 when forces would be built up fully.
American and British intelligence was had broken German codes.
Some members of the Abwehr (German Army Intelligence) were helping the Allies.
The Fuhrer Principle: Obey orders, no independent initiative.
Refusal to fully mobilize women in war industries to replace the men.
Failed to provide Admiral Dönitz with the 300 U-boats he said were needed at the start to win. Started with less than 50.
Hitler broke promise to avoid a two-front war and invaded the Soviet Union.
Using an incredible segment of resources for his Final Solution (which actually went much further than the Jews) instead of using them for the war.
Declared war Dec 11, 1941 on the U.S., which supplied Britain and the Soviet Union, while building it's own forces from a tiny regular army.

***Most costly and unavoidable problem: Hitler himself. His amazing success and luck in pushing the Ardennes Offensive in May 1940 that crushed the French and forced the British out went to his head. He was an incompetent commander who had latched on to the right strategy plans of others. When things went seriously wrong after Stalingrad and El Alamein he started to seize personal command, directed strategy, and often forced armies in helpless positions to stand and die where they stood to the last man, wasting millions of men's lives, the same as he had at both battles mentioned.

I do not foresee a day when I will have to take up arms against my government but crazier things have happened. Since you are of German ancestory I will remind you that the Germans enforced strong gun control laws in 1938. Henrich Himler said "German citizens that want to use firearms should join the SS or the SA. Ordinary citizens do not need guns as their having guns doesn't serve the state." If the Jews were armed they would of had a fighting chance. Look at the Warsaw Gehttos. The italians and the Japanense also enforced strict gun control. Cuba has strict gun control. It has always been a first step to tyranny so don't tell me it will never happen here. (remember the internment camps in WWII?)

Sorry, but I always get a bit amused when I see these references. Especially that: "If the Jews were armed they would of had a fighting chance." Answer: NOT A PRAYER. The French had the largest army in the world in 1940, how did they do? The Jews were scattered and interwoven in many places/countries. Do you really think Jewish moms and dads were going to stand up to the Germans? The Russian people tried and died by the millions. Many countries had dedicated organized guerrilla fighters. Millions of them died with little gain until the main army turned the tide. Yes they would have been better off, but on their own only the number of millions who died would have been different. The best real example was Denmark and it had nothing to do with guns. The Danes simply refused to cooperate. 99 Percent of Danish Jews survived without the use of a gun.

That's what is worrying about the kind of suggestion being made by extreme pro-gun people, to cast about these grotesque specters like the Nazis, the cheapest scare tactic of all, and suggest shooting those who come for your guns...ie...confiscation, which has not even been suggested. There have been many civil movements without guns that have had great success, some of the best and most remarkable examples in the U.S., and yet there haven't been any suggestions about mass peaceful protest or resistance here. The impulse of our Constitution respecting gun owners has been to bring out the big Nazi boogey men and suggest solving the issue with arms...shooting people. It's nuts and IT'S DISGRACEFUL!!!!!!!!!!

REALLY,

Merlot

 

[shijak]

Agreed with Merlot, why is it whenever one wishes to inflame the population and to make an extreme point about anything, they trot out the nazi comparison? Simple, because they have no wish to discuss anything, indeed wish to stop the discussion dead in its tracks...

All I read and hear is don't take my guns away or anarchy will rain in the streets, and the imaginary fascist government of the US's own making will end life as we all know it (notice how I added of the US's own making? you reap what you have all sown, people)...

Look, the previous biggest killer of american lives were cigarettes, and finally after many years of legislation and studies and raised public awareness, and finally big tobacco has lost some of its power and the rate of death by smoking has finally begun to decrease...

I swear, if FOX news had been in existence say ten years before, they would have initiated a jihad against the US government for attacking the constitution's ''pursuit of life, liberty, and'' with its campaign against cigarettes...and the same people wailing against gun control would have been as equally up in..., ahem, arms, back then...

Or even back in the 60's when Ralph Nader got the US gvmt to make seat belts mandatory in automobiles... ''ohmygod, the government is taking away my freedom!!!!!!!!!!!!''

 

[Gentle]

Some a**holes shot themselves during The Gun appreciation DAY shows... !!! :lol:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/connecticut-school-shooting-americas-gun-1547196
Got to love those dumb MFs.

Meanwhile a Fire Chief Chaplin was killed along the others at a mass shooting in NM.
http://www.kansascity.com/2013/01/20/4021416/officials-nm-teen-gunman-kills.html

According to the NRA, the killer was a 15y. old... and the semi-automatic military-style rifle had nothing to do with it.

 

[Gentle]

Big clusterfuck of a vicious circle, isn't it?

:lol::lol::lol:

I have nothing to add after this one !

 

[EagerBeaver]

Presidential Inauguration

I was watching the inauguration today and saw President and Mrs Obama walking down Pennsylvania Ave. and was thinking of the awesome pressure those Secret Service agents flanking the Obamas must have been feeling. They have to watch how many thousands of people and be looking for guns, knives etc. What an awesome task, as any one of thousands could be the next John Hinckley. And can you imagine if something like that happened on your watch as SS agent? Man those guys have more pressure than Tom Brady in the pocket yesterday. My mother told me she was going nuts the entire time thinking a shot would ring out and Obama would go down. But don't forget she watched the whole Kennedy assassination unfold on TV as a young woman. Anyways I wonder if doing this is still a good idea? I give Obama a lot of credit though for not being afraid especially with all the right wing nutjobs that exist in this world.

 

[Merlot]

Hello all,

I hope everyone had the pleasure of see President Obama inaugurated today. It was 20 years ago yesterday when I saw the Inauguration of President Clinton take the oath for his first term in 1993. Being a historian, it was a great thrill then as it was today.

Yes, the Secret Service were everywhere, and no doubt some government sharpshooters on roofs or wherever they thought they needed to be. The Secret Service had two types of people there, one type in suits all wearing the same pins to make sure you could see their presence, and the other type incognito. Back then I was a photography addict with my own B&W lab at home, so I had a huge heavy camera bag with my Nikon and six lenses inside, plus light meters, filters and more stuff.

I never got to the seating areas held for invitees and those with special tickets, but I was right in the front of the standing area. No surprise a very tall athletic young agent with the telltale pin on his jacket and blacked out glasses (it was a very sunny day), and a female partner, appeared about 10-12 feet behind me. Other agents with the same pins were not far off checking over more of the crowd. Nothing was said, but knowing he was concerned about my large bag I opened it purposely to relax him and made off like I was checking all my camera and lens equipment in his full view. Very soon after he left. Yeah, they are right on anything that looks possibly..."interesting".

After the speech I walked down Pennsylvania Avenue to find a place to through the huge crowd where I could stand and get a view of the parade. I found a spot right at the corner of 14th and Pennsylvania Avenue on the other side of the block where the street bends. Lucky me, Bill and Hillary became the first Presidential couple to get out of the car and walk since President Carter first did it in 1977. The spot they chose to start walking was right at the bend. So being jostled by the wild crowd I snapped shots as they walked right down the middle of the street like President and Mrs. Obama did today, and boy did the police and the Secret Service agents have their eyes on every movement. It was fun and impressive.

God Bless the President of the United States: Barack Hussein Obama, and his family. :thumb:

Majority Whip Erik Helland, who is on a subcommittee assigned to the controversial bill, laments over how he was blasted in a blog about the bill during the earwigged conversation. He then goes on to complain about his part in the Alaska bill:

“I’m the dirty hatchet man for the [Republican] caucus. Something nobody wants to do, some dirty, nasty job. I’m the one who gets dropped in. You know why? Because I’m expendable.”

Speaker pro tem, Jeff Kaufmann, sympathizes with Helland’s plight, calling the Alaska Bill, “the crazy, give-a-handgun-to-a-schizophrenic bill.”

Republicans may believe in the 2nd Amendment and give a great deal of lip service to the NRA, but don't ever think they don't have a lot of concern or fear that there are 300 million guns out there, knowing many are owned by highly questionable types.

Cheers,

Merlot

 

[Gentle]

Stop arguing instead have fun !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjGk_jU6t5A&list=UU67f2Qf7FYhtoUIF4Sf29cA

 

[StefanoUS]

I give Obama a lot of credit though for not being afraid especially with all the right wing nutjobs that exist in this world.

Seriously Beav ... Adam Lanza (Newtown), Jared Lee Loughner (shot Gabby Giffords) and James Holmes (Colorado movie shooter) were right wing nutjobs? None of these dudes had any political vendettas. They had severe mental illness issues.

BTW, was John Hinckley who shot President Ronald Reagan a right wing nutjob too?