I waited and waited

[Guest ratchethack]

Algore gets credit for advancing the cause of Gun Control!

 

WHAAAAAAAAT?!?!

 

Yes, indeed. Think about it. If mere well-organized and highly paid witch-doctor propagandists can dumb down the Philistines far enough to get them to swallow the idea that it’s not only “sophisticated” and “enlightened”, but “noble”, and even “necessary” to fight Global Warming by getting GROUPTHINK idiots to commit to pay BILLION$ for carbon credits to COOL THE PLANET, (after over a decade of “man made” Global Cooling, yet!) -- Why, how hard could it be to take away the rights of these fools to legally defend themselves, the right to bear arms being the foremost anchor of freedom since the dawn of man, the classic historic revocation of which has always been the number one objective of tyrants as the final springboard to abject tyranny?? Well then, the dumbing-down propaganda campaign would seem to be as complete as it needs to be now, and the next slouching slide down the slippery slope is suddenly easier than shooting ducks in a barrel -- in fact, it's all downhill from here!

 

 

Once again, there’s actually a few paragraphs of reading involved in this post. But as we’ve been reminded again in this thread, several paragraphs of actual reading is beyond both the tolerance level, intellectual capacity, and effort level threshold of at least a few hereabouts.

 

So for those who don't read, who’ve been permanently conditioned to blindly accept disinformation, someone else's pre-fabricated ideas, and non-thinking values exclusively from spoon-fed, pre-digested designer propaganda content at the same low-effort threshold as children via sound bites, bumper stickers, and political sloganeering, (we now have an entire planet full of ‘em), you may now exit this post immediately and adjourn between the latest selection of warm mounds of comfort on the Hooters thread.

 

Absolutely WILL NOT read another word? NO PROBLEM! Sit back and relax, Binky! There’s a low-effort VIDEO ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream media’s written spin on the subject of the upcoming video clip at the link below!

 

Think of this as a “gift”, especially for those who can’t (or won’t) read. It’s a video clip interview with Tony Martin and other Brits, which presents an altogether different perspective from the coverage provided by The Beeb (also provided below for contrast, as noted previously).

 

How has the infamous British handgun ban of 1997 worked out?

 

Let's have a look!

 

Video quotes -- British wisdom for Americans from first-hand experience, in the aftermath of the 1997 handgun ban:

 

"Americans have a saying: 'Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.'"

 

"Your Constitution matters. Your freedom matters. Don't give an inch!"

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTq2NEUlhDE

 

Somehow, I don’t think the US Citizenry would be as polite and smiley about this as either Tony Martin or the Brits interviewed in the video in the aftermath of the same tyranny here. Make no mistake, the ObamaNation and The Messiah's newly appointed Attorney General, gun control extremist Eric Holder, will be foisting this tyranny on the US just as soon as they figure the Philistines have been dumbed-down close enough to the level of plantation slaves to allow The ObamaNation to get away with it.

 

I have one question for all the ignorant, lemming/stooge Gun Control advocates here in the US:

 

Do you welcome the kind of “justice” that was given to Tony Martin for all US Citizens?

 

That’s a “yes” or “no” question. If you should respond to this question, please clearly provide one or the other one-word answer up front in your reply. If you can’t post a clear "no" up front, I’ll be compelled to take whatever you want to post as an alternative as a “yes”. HINT: The concept that it is more “noble” and “sophisticated” to allow an attacker breaking his way into your home to take your property and/or your life and/or the lives of your family by wilfully forfeiting your existing right and ability to resist with overwhelming deadly force classifies you on a clinical basis as a moron. You have been dumbed-down to the point of being thoroughly brainwashed by design and agenda, and there is no hope for you personally. You're on a suicide mission. Now I couldn't care less about that, except that you're taking the rest of your Nation and mine with you when you intentionally give your God-given freedom and your rights away. For this, at a bare minimum, you ought to be horse-whipped, sheep dipped, and bucketed with tar and feathers for your rank stupidity, negligence, and irresponsibility.

 

Now that the rest of us have seen the video clip, anyone possessing both a sincere further interest in the topic at hand and actual reading ability may now also be interested enough to read a short 2003 update on the case of Tony Martin (see link below), which began in 1999, two years after the infamous British hand gun ban was enforced, and which wrapped up in 2003 with Martin’s release from High Point Prison, nearly four years later. This case has been conspicuous by its total absence here in the US captive liberal mainstream media, and all but 100% censored here, in a violation of our first amendment rights, for what would seem to be obvious reasons -- except, of course, to the swelling ranks of the Philistines, who almost certainly never heard of the story, and who couldn’t care less and/or wouldn’t want any awareness of it anyway. It seems that many Philistines prefer their familiar head-in-sand posture in willing preparation for the entry of the tip, followed abruptly (and repeatedly) by the ever-lengthening shaft of what typically follows from their government, as it were, on the ancient model of history so well established by all governments (including ours here most recently).

 

Britain is now 13 years ahead of the US on the ever-advancing gun ban agenda that is now entering end game stage here in the US. The results in the UK have been predictably devastating, as clearly as the video clip demonstrates, following the identical pattern everywhere on the planet where the exact same revocation of civil rights has previously been inflicted on the populace. SOURCE: More Guns, Less Crime, by John R. Lott, the foremost compilation of long-term scientific studies on worldwide results of gun control extant.

 

Here then, from 2003, is one of the updates on the Tony Martin case in The Beeb, hardly a paragon of defense of Individual Rights. In fact, The Beeb has paid both Martin and his surviving attacker for one-sided interviews under a bit of sticky wicket circumstances for The Beeb, wherein their Prime Agenda would have directed them not to report the case at all, the reportage having been forced upon them against their will by the Web, which had scooped The Beeb on the story, and made them look like the horse’s arses they are for not covering it initially, a long-term pattern of such practices which has earned them a reputation worldwide for their blatant lack of objectivity:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england...olk/3009769.stm

[jrt]

This thread is quickly spinning out. Bring it down a couple of notches, ok?

 

It's interesting you get three pages, John. I only get two so far. Must be the exchange rate.

[DeBenGuzzi]

There is a difference between lack of color blindness and racism.

It is OK to see the color, it is not OK to treat people in a negative way because of their color.

Celebrating the President's color is not racist.

If all you see is his color, you are ignorant, not racist.

the term racist feels correct to me racist to me is "Discrimination or prejudice based on race" Every color on the planet does it, the thing I see so many focusing on it even in a attempt to be positive, I will agree with ignorant as it seems mostly white soccer moms that wont shutup about it like they hate white ppl and I am taken back to the man himself "judge me not on the color of my skin, but the content of my character", maybe I didn't get it word for word but I say enough already and can't wait for the day when his words are truly universal, I hope I live to see it. I'm also sickened by all the people that think they don't have to goto work, find a job, pay taxes or bills cause Obama is in the white house he'll take care of everything, I'm not exaggerating it either, the next 2 years realistically will be the most trying because the economy is still tanking and all the effects have not been felt yet.

[DeBenGuzzi]

PS. Beer sales are up 1% even in the depression

[gavo]

I'll put a toe in the water about this gun debate(just for a laugh) There have been some good points scored by both sides BUT: personal freedom, no one that lives in a modern society has total freedom however I do see goverment bans happening far to often ,my counties latest is an internet censorship and they are making noises about smoking, alcohol, fast food,fast cars and MOTOCYCLES and any thing else they see fit to protect us from. So while I don't particlarly like guns or see a need for them in a modern society this still smells like a goverment that thinks it knows best no matter what you say.

If your society is so crime ridden you have to sleep with gun in hand to protect your self( which I thought the police should be doing) I would be asking serious questions of my goverment, looking to the reasons crime is rampant. Fact is social inequality ,lack of basic needs like employment ,healthcare,food,decent housing and education is how crime gets a foothold.

Remember you just can't ban everything but you can't shoot it either.

[Guzzirider]

Golly gosh this is a blooming long winter!

 

[dlaing]

Britain is now 13 years ahead of the US on the ever-advancing gun ban agenda that is now entering end game stage here in the US.

It will probably take only 1 year if Skeeve shoots Obama for signing a law that Skeeve believes violates the 2nd Amendment, but if he kills Obama by lynching him, as he suggested, it may take longer, unless guns were used in the lynching, which they probably would be.

[John in Leeds]

I'll put a toe in the water about this gun debate(just for a laugh) There have been some good points scored by both sides BUT: personal freedom, no one that lives in a modern society has total freedom however I do see goverment bans happening far to often ,my counties latest is an internet censorship and they are making noises about smoking, alcohol, fast food,fast cars and MOTOCYCLES and any thing else they see fit to protect us from. So while I don't particlarly like guns or see a need for them in a modern society this still smells like a goverment that thinks it knows best no matter what you say.

If your society is so crime ridden you have to sleep with gun in hand to protect your self( which I thought the police should be doing) I would be asking serious questions of my goverment, looking to the reasons crime is rampant. Fact is social inequality ,lack of basic needs like employment ,healthcare,food,decent housing and education is how crime gets a foothold. Remember you just can't ban everything but you can't shoot it either.

 

Asking questions of a government assumes your government will listen (two million people on the streets of London demonstrating their will to prevent war before the start of the Iraq invasion). Fat chance

 

I get the feeling that modern governments (or should I say the people in control) really benefit from the fear generated by crime, unemployment, so called terrorism or conflict. The continual vapourware initiatives keep people thinking that solutions are afoot yet our wealth and freedoms are squandered. Keep people ignorant, scared and confused - they then do not seriously question, will fight for that rubbish job and will greatfully eat or consume anything that is put in front of them.

 

Woe, Woe and thrice Woe What a miserable sod

 

Sorry, I mean Whoo Hoo it's snowing, I'm going to get the sledge out

 

and there's more to come tonight

[Guzzi2Go]

I get the feeling that modern governments (or should I say the people in control) really benefit from the fear generated by crime, unemployment, so called terrorism or conflict. The continual vapourware initiatives keep people thinking that solutions are afoot yet our wealth and freedoms are squandered. Keep people ignorant, scared and confused - they then do not seriously question, will fight for that rubbish job and will greatfully eat or consume anything that is put in front of them.

Every totalitarian government is in need of "foreign and domestic" enemies. Communist countries are obvious example of these, as their leaders often fling speeches about a constant fight/war with these and thereof resulting hardships.

 

However, recent "W-rhetoric" (just as McCarthy's "back then") has shown that this works just as good for capitalist countries. And that commander-in-chief picture puts "W" abreast with Kim Jong, Joseph Visarionovich, Vladimir Ilic, Hugo, Fidel,...

[Guzzi2Go]

PS. Beer sales are up 1% even in the depression

Is this a cause or a consequence of "the" depression?

[GuzziMoto]

All right, as indicated by the Miller '38 decision[1], arms that a single militia member would be expected to employ are protected. So, no crew-served weapons weapons, tanks, jets, etc. Anything which one soldier/militiaman[2] could be expected to hump along with a minimum load out of the required ammunition is protected from federal[3] interference under the 2nd amendment.

 

BTW, as an aside: the federal prosecutor arguing before the Supremes in Miller '38 misrepresented the govt's. case and lied to the justices when asked if short-barreled shotguns had military value, as they had been in use by the U.S. armed forces since before WWI, and were extensively used within that conflict. But of course he just said "No."

 

Yet another example of your "public servants" only "doing their job," no matter how wrong...

 

Anyway, this discussion is heading into the "But we showed you..." "No! We refuse your arguments! Lalalalalala (fingers in ears)" phase, so I'm outta here. Ratchethack can argue this stuff much better than I can anyway. Besides, I flat out refuse to put that much of my limited lifespan arguing w/ people who don't want to hear it, wouldn't admit the truth if it bit'em on the - er - nose, and think it's all a (gasp) Republican (eeewww!) conspiracy [as if the Republicans wouldn't all sell us out as quickly as their Democrat opponents have, given the opportunity!] to overthrow the New World Order they're only trying to bring to us benighted reactionaries "for our own good." [it's "for the children" you know!]

 

Remember, once they ban your guns, the motorcycles are next! Can't have some minority of outlaws putting the public at risk with their daredevil antics and drain on medical resources, can we?

 

Ride on!

 

[1] - which is flawed in itself; if there had been any amicus curiae briefs filed, it's likely that the 1934 act that Miller was being charged under would have been struck down. Since Miller didn't show, he automatically lost and an entire nation's future has been put at stake due to the fact that it is now "embedded" law...

 

[2] - and let's get it straight right now, that the terminology used is not subject to reinterpretation based upon modern language usage! At the time, the "militia" consisted of every able-bodied male from 16-60 (ie, those who could own property and sign contracts on their own behalf; essentially, the voting population.) Lest any smart-@ss socialist interpret the foregoing to mean that the elderly can be disarmed: the cutoff of 60 was just a shorthand for "anyone old w/ fight still left in them" - at the time the average life expectancy was only in the mid-40s: being 60 years old and still hale was an exceptional feat! Since nobody else alive knew how old you really were, you just stopped counting after 60, unless you chose to make a big deal out of it!

 

[3] - The "unlimited freedom ain't good for us" crowd seem to be getting their panties in a twist about this subject, so let's refresh: the federal govt. is forbidden to regulate small arms, but the state governments are not. This was the intent of the founders, as the local governments were all answerable to their local populace, and would likely be lynched, or at least tarred and feathered, for trying to disarm their constituency. At the very least, they'd be voted out and replaced with right-thinking folks at the 1st opportunity. And if not? There were still other states to move to; at least by preventing the federal govt. from being involved with any such nonsense, the free states couldn't be bullied by any number of misguided neighbors...

 

At this point I think it is safe to say that while we do not completely agree on how the second amendment should be interpreted (but we are not that far apart), I hope we can both agree that it is something that must be interpreted. Indeed, that is what the supreme court is for. Just as they must interpret the most important amendment, the first amendment.

I am not one for debate on the merits of a gun ban like England has, I do not believe that is likely to happen in my lifetime. The original question was, is the 2nd amendment clear and unequivocal as written. My opinion is that it requires interpretation and that interpretation has changed over the course of this country, as evidenced by the changes in gun laws over the course of this country.

I do not support gun bans nor am I a gun nut. I do own guns, but I think owning a gun is a responsibility both to the individual and to society. It is a powerful thing.

[GuzziMoto]

Every totalitarian government is in need of "foreign and domestic" enemies. Communist countries are obvious example of these, as their leaders often fling speeches about a constant fight/war with these and thereof resulting hardships.

 

However, recent "W-rhetoric" (just as McCarthy's "back then") has shown that this works just as good for capitalist countries. And that commander-in-chief picture puts "W" abreast with Kim Jong, Joseph Visarionovich, Vladimir Ilic, Hugo, Fidel,...

 

One of my favorite quotes from one of my favorite movies, People should not be afraid of their goverment, goverment should be afraid of it's people.

When I saw that movie for the first time I could not believe how much of it was actually happening (I did not see it in the theatre) and how erie it was.

[dlaing]

I do not support gun bans nor am I a gun nut

Snip

If I won the lotto I might become a gun nut, but I support bans on armor piercing sniper rifles for kindergartners' daily personal protection.

Just give'm the freakin' lunch money kid!

I also don't think consenting adults should be able to bare loaded RPG launching guns, in public, unless they are active military under orders to hunt down those plotting to lynch law makers.

There are no elephants where I live, accept in the zoos near hear, so elephant and rhino guns, should be disabled or only allowed at shooting ranges, and the zoos of course, to prevent over population of them thick skinned critters.

In Grizzly bear country, I think you need more flexibility than in Washington D.C. where the death rates of black males statistically looks kind of like genocide, but it is not the tyrants doing the shooting.

I think gun user-ship should be licensed like driver licenses, where you have to pass tests.

If you are blind as a bat and a total spaz, you should be limited to sawed off shot guns so you can hit your target

[GuzziMoto]

If I won the lotto I might become a gun nut, but I support bans on armor piercing sniper rifles for kindergartners' daily personal protection.

Just give'm the freakin' lunch money kid!

I also don't think consenting adults should be able to bare loaded RPG launching guns, in public, unless they are active military under orders to hunt down those plotting to lynch law makers.

There are no elephants where I live, accept in the zoos near hear, so elephant and rhino guns, should be disabled or only allowed at shooting ranges, and the zoos of course, to prevent over population of them thick skinned critters.

In Grizzly bear country, I think you need more flexibility than in Washington D.C. where the death rates of black males statistically looks kind of like genocide, but it is not the tyrants doing the shooting.

I think gun user-ship should be licensed like driver licenses, where you have to pass tests.

If you are blind as a bat and a total spaz, you should be limited to sawed off shot guns so you can hit your target

 

To me a gun ban means just that, BANNING guns. That would be stupid. What types of guns are allowed is regulating guns, and that is a horse of a different color. Arguing gun regulation is a waste of time in most cases. Most people already have their ideas about what is right and what is wrong and what you say will not change anything. My only issue with what Skeeve said was that the constitution is clear and definitive about the right to bear arms and there is no room for interpretation. The fact that in the DC case before the supreme court 5 justices voted that it was un-constitutional and 4 voted that it wasn't proves that the 2nd amendment is not free from interpretation and that there is room for it. If one more justice thought it was constitutional it would have gone the other way.

[richard100t]

If the government does ban a certain type of firearm it wont be problem for the people that want said weapon. I can go right down to my friendly local Harbor Freight store & buy all the machinist equipment needed to manufacture any high powered weapon I choose to make. Pretty cheap too. All your local militia really needs are a few members with machinist skills. Personally I think thats the best way to go for law type rockets & such, there really isnt all that much to them.

Not that I have any desire to do such a thing!