O'yes, this is about grabbing our guns..

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It is time to stand up and say:

<center style="line-height: 15.933333396911621px; outline: none; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;">"NO! YOU WILL NOT TAKE OUR GUNS!'

We need to stand together to protect our

Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.</center>
Now that Obama has been elected for a second term he’s going to turn up the heat.

Here’s what he’ll do... Incrementally, he will attempt to grab our gun rights.

<center style="line-height: 15.933333396911621px; outline: none; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;">
<tbody style="line-height: 1.2em; outline: none;">


a ban on a select type of weapon.

Then it will be a ban on the manufacturing of certain types of bullets.

Then it will be severe limitations on the amount of ammo you can buy.



</tbody>

It will go on like this - he will eat out the heart of the Second Amendment unless we stop him and his minions!</center>
But, I will tell you right here and right now: We’ll be damned if we will let him get away with it. WE stand with them and WE will not be bullied out of gun ownership or our right to bear arms. Obama will try an end-run around the Constitution within the next few weeks, but we’ll be waiting for him.

<center style="line-height: 15.933333396911621px; outline: none; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;">"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading."
–Thomas Jefferson</center>
Of all the half-assed notions spewed from the vile recesses of liberal sink-tanks comes the unfounded idiotic notion that the Second Amendment CAN be infringed upon by the limitation of States rights - or by denial of Second Amendment rights to our citizens and our military men and women!

Obama’s toxic rhetoric is not only unconstitutional, but outright unfounded. Not only is there nocase law to establish such outlandish and off-base claims, but it is an insult to anyone who can read the Constitution.

As usual he’s making this sh*t up to serve his own world commie agenda.<center style="line-height: 15.933333396911621px; outline: none; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;">
GUN GRABBING IS COMING AT AN ACCELERATED PACE
FROM MANY DIRECTIONS.

</center>

A good friend of mine sent me this in an email today , FROM I BELIEVE TO BE A TEAPARTY NOTICE. . He is an honorably retired American military veteran with combat experience. His personal suggestion to me not included here is , "my friend buy more ammo".. I told him that he is a day late and a dollar short. I did that the first time the ffing traitor was elected. And enlarged my supply since then just on general principle.;)-Tyr
p.s. I Almost titled this thread- Obama's New Crusade..

[fj1200]

:rolleyes:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

:rolleyes:

With such in depth and brilliant commentary you will have to be careful not to razzle dazzle us into complete slavish devotion and submission . Carry on , I eagerly await your next amazingly brilliant post.-;)-Tyr

[fj1200]

With such in depth and brilliant commentary you will have to be careful not to razzle dazzle us into complete slavish devotion and submission . Carry on , I eagerly await your next amazingly brilliant post.-;)-Tyr

Perhaps if the opening post contained more than unsubstantiated rhetoric and logical flaws about the legislative process of the US government.

[mundame]

This was on Huffington Post headlined on Google News just now --


Could 'Women Against Guns' Be As Powerful As Mothers Against Drunk Driving?...

....what I wonder is why we can't follow the lead of another group of outraged women, Mother Against Drunk Drivers, and, if nothing else, make owning a gun as socially unacceptable as driving drunk. Both can kill.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shannon-kelley/gun-violence_b_2313436.html




This is a very interesting blog post. I know something about Mothers Against Drunk Driving --- these are the angriest, most powerful women I ever saw, snakes for hair, I can tell you, and they won it ALL, everything, as you know. I can remember when drunk driving was treated as a joke ---- boy, it sure isn't now.

Friday I saw a shocking bumper sticker: "My daughter was killed by a drunk driver."

So they're still out there, guarding their conquest. I can tell you right now, if women as angry as those ladies organize to get rid of guns, they will win and you will lose. I've seen it happen.

[fj1200]

I can tell you right now, if women as angry as those ladies organize to get rid of guns, they will win and you will lose. I've seen it happen.

Were they successful in grabbing our guns and/or our alcohol?

[tailfins]

This was on Huffington Post headlined on Google News just now --





This is a very interesting blog post. I know something about Mothers Against Drunk Driving --- these are the angriest, most powerful women I ever saw, snakes for hair, I can tell you, and they won it ALL, everything, as you know. I can remember when drunk driving was treated as a joke ---- boy, it sure isn't now.

Friday I saw a shocking bumper sticker: "My daughter was killed by a drunk driver."

So they're still out there, guarding their conquest. I can tell you right now, if women as angry as those ladies organize to get rid of guns, they will win and you will lose. I've seen it happen.

We see MADD's conquest every time there is a roadblock or someone's license suspended for a typo on a ticket with no due process. We will know similar anti-gun groups have made a conquest when random stop-and-frisk becomes widespread.

[mundame]

Were they successful in grabbing our guns and/or our alcohol?

Sorry if I wasn't being clear --- alcohol, and twice, really.

The first time was Prohibition, which was wholly a woman's movement, 100%. They got a Constitutional Amendment and no legal alcohol laws lasted for YEARS. Admittedly, there were some unintended consequences and that came to a stop....but I would say the movement succeeded in the sense that the extreme proliferation of saloons, several to a block, that touched off the movement (caused by heavy European immigration with their drinking culture) DID end. Many controls were put on drinking -- dry states still exist today, state stores, heavy zoning against saloons and roadhouses, liquor control boards in every county. Boy, ours is mean. They shut down restaurants soon as look at them.

The 70s--80s movement of Mothers Against Drunk Driving was highly successful in stopping most drunk driving by putting very harsh penalties on getting caught. At the very least you have to go to these AA meetings for weeks and months.

Women don't usually get involved in politics much. When they do, however, they organize effectively and they win big. Abortion legalization during the 60s is another example. I've met these Mothers Against Drunk Driving --- that was one scary pack of ladies. If such women organize against guns, THAT would be quite a Battle of the Sexes.

You would lose, guys. Hey, I'm just saying, as a person who has been watching this stuff for a long time. I myself would prefer the option of our being able to defend ourselves against home invaders. But things are getting very weird and sad now. I'm beginning to lose faith.

[mundame]

We see MADD's conquest every time there is a roadblock or someone's license suspended for a typo on a ticket with no due process. We will know similar anti-gun groups have made a conquest when random stop-and-frisk becomes widespread.


Good point.

Have you seen the series "Revolution"? The strongman-government after electricity fails worldwide searches for guns and executes anyone holding them. Very radical theme, very creepy and nervous-making. The good guys are the rebels fighting them.

[fj1200]

Sorry if I wasn't being clear --- alcohol, and twice, really.

There are no dry states and drunk driving IS a bad thing. But yes, eternal vigilance is always required but the 2nd won't be repealed.

[mundame]

There are no dry states and drunk driving IS a bad thing. But yes, eternal vigilance is always required but the 2nd won't be repealed.

There were certainly dry states right after prohibition ended. Now there are still dry counties. Aside from moonshining, some men made a living running whiskey from across the border to drinkers in the dry state. Don't ask how I know that.......those relatives are all dead now. [:-)

[fj1200]

^Dry states do not exist today.

[tailfins]

Friday I saw a shocking bumper sticker: "My daughter was killed by a drunk driver."

I remember being tailgated by someone with one of those very stickers. If an animal had run out in front of me I guess my wife could have said "My husband was killed by a tailgater".

[fj1200]

^That scenario begs the obvious question.

[fj1200]

You would lose, guys. Hey, I'm just saying, as a person who has been watching this stuff for a long time. I myself would prefer the option of our being able to defend ourselves against home invaders. But things are getting very weird and sad now. I'm beginning to lose faith.

As an add on; Prohibition was part of a larger Progressive movement, the Fed, 17th Amendment, Suffrage, etc., that was in vogue at the time. I don't think a larger movement is going on right now even with BO in office, look at the off-year elections and the make-up of state legislatures and governors. It's up to supporters of the 2nd to make intelligent arguments about retaining those rights.

[Voted4Reagan]

This was on Huffington Post headlined on Google News just now --





This is a very interesting blog post. I know something about Mothers Against Drunk Driving --- these are the angriest, most powerful women I ever saw, snakes for hair, I can tell you, and they won it ALL, everything, as you know. I can remember when drunk driving was treated as a joke ---- boy, it sure isn't now.

Friday I saw a shocking bumper sticker: "My daughter was killed by a drunk driver."

So they're still out there, guarding their conquest. I can tell you right now, if women as angry as those ladies organize to get rid of guns, they will win and you will lose. I've seen it happen.

There will NEVER be a prohibition against Firearms as there was with Alcohol in the early 20th Century.

And we saw how the Prohibition laws were adhered to....Crime involving illegal alcohol sales skyrocketed.

You really failed at history....didnt you?

[Robert A Whit]

Correct me constitution lawyers should I type a wrong concept but this is my opinion.

Freedom. One simple word that really complicates our daily life.

Oh, we think we have freedom. Sure we do.

Have you ever encountered government and said --- what the hell is this going on? How can they do this to me?

I can rattle off dozens of freedoms that effect your daily life that you LOST.

However this is about killing humans, and in this particular case, mostly children.

First to sweep out the trash. Nobody approves any of those forms of killing. Not in a school, nor in a theater nor in a mall. Not even on city streets nor in the home.

Civilians don't buy guns to shoot the wife you are angry at, the girlfriend you caught cheating, the child so innocent nor your mother as this guy did and so forth.

Guns can deter criminals should they know about you being armed.

Rather than attack the guns, just arm teachers. We finally got the airline pilots armed for our safety and it is time to train teachers and pay them added pay to be armed. We don't want or expect the teachers to engage in gun fights. Being armed and criminals knowing of it can deter such criminals. This clown shot out a window to get into the school. But had he knew teachers were armed, I tend to doubt he would have shot up the school.

Question of course is, if not the school, then where. We have not heard of criminals going to police stations and gunning down the cops. Why not?

Can't be the uniform. That is just clothing. Has to be that the cops are armed.

Anyway, my first point was not developed as I intended. What I want to convey is that should they pass more laws, I think we might be ready to take them back to court. Much has happened since they pulled that crap the last time on free people.

Guns also defend against a goverment. Don't forget that.

This government is not nice by definition. Nothing nice at all about the war toys they have to use nor the bombs and so forth. If you think an Aircraft Carrier is nice, think again. A machine gun in the government arsenel can also be used to shut you up. Think they wont' do it? I now of no evil government with guns that at some point did not turn them on the free citizens.

Look, I can only do so much to preserve your freedom. If you are not interested in freedom and wish to obtain more rather than less, I can't do it for you totally.

Many years ago when I was working my way out of being a democrat, somebody talk this way and I automatically put them on ignore or called them nuts.

Then my eyes started opening.

[mundame]

As an add on; Prohibition was part of a larger Progressive movement, the Fed, 17th Amendment, Suffrage, etc., that was in vogue at the time. I don't think a larger movement is going on right now even with BO in office, look at the off-year elections and the make-up of state legislatures and governors. It's up to supporters of the 2nd to make intelligent arguments about retaining those rights.


No, indeed: gun ownership is way up and gun rights are also way up right now, especially since Obama's election.

Very interesting editorial by CNN's David Frum, on why Obama canNOT lead any anti-gun movement.


http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/17/opinion/frum-leadership-newtown/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

He says the model HAS to be MADD, because any participation by Obama would just stir up huge resistance. But like the Huff Post blogger, he independently thinks the MADD model would work. So do I, since I've seen that work.

Like many people, I think this country is on the edge of revolution, and I have for some years thought that it will be about gun regulation if it happens at all. Look how angry and ready to revolt some people here are. People mean what they say, IMO --- they wouldn't say it otherwise. If it happens, it will happen very quickly, in half a week -- that's how big events always happen. WWII, WWI, the collapse of the Soviet Union, etc.

However, I think a woman's group like MADD could do it. There are a lot of men, a LOT of men here and elsewhere, who have more than a dozen guns in their homes, and thousands of rounds of ammo. Do you think we don't know why? Hey, we all know why. The trick would be to make guns much less available for rampage shooters while NOT sparking open rebellion.

Obviously Obama better not get involved.

[pete311]

And we saw how the Prohibition laws were adhered to....Crime involving illegal alcohol sales skyrocketed.


Just about everyone likes a drink now and then. Not nearly the same following for guns.

[pete311]

Guns also defend against a goverment. Don't forget that.


yeah good luck with that

[mundame]

Just about everyone likes a drink now and then. Not nearly the same following for guns.


!! Creative point. You are saying guns would be a softer target to prohibit because fewer people are interested in owning guns than being able to drink.

[fj1200]

However, I think a woman's group like MADD could do it.

Drunk driving is universally bad and nothing good comes of it, guns are a different story.

[tailfins]

Drunk driving is universally bad and nothing good comes of it, guns are a different story.

I'm against gun control, but my inner smartazz must be heard:

Guns sure did HIM a world of good!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwzaxUF0k18