Why You Should Question the Feds

[jerseyboiler120]

Just got home from work, and started watching history channel. It's a documentary about how hitler came to power and what happened with the media. Reminds me spot on of what's been going on for years now with the messiah and his merry band of communists.

[Rother8]

Originally Posted by Endy

I think its funny that anybody would ever believe that our military, which is composed of many people who really don't like Obama, would ever follow his orders to take over the entire country.

If you really believe that, then I've got a bridge to sell you and this stock you really need to buy, which is totally can't miss.

And the "Civilian Security Force"? If you are afraid of the Peace Corp then you've got bigger problems than the President.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/oba...ecurity-force/

Ironic how the internet is the world's largest cache of information, yet also the world's largest cache of ignorant people.

They might not want to take an order from Barack but they way they've been trained to take a knee at the guy who yells at them, they say yes sir to their brother. This would happen in most situations imo. If you're in the army and you're actually doing some fighting you're probably the type that's going to keep fighting for a "cause" if it's presented to you. You don't exactly join for a resume booster.

[DHallblows]

Originally Posted by jerseyboiler120

Just got home from work, and started watching history channel. It's a documentary about how hitler came to power and what happened with the media. Reminds me spot on of what's been going on for years now with the messiah and his merry band of communists.

That goddamn Kenyan, Muslim...

[jerseyboiler120]

Originally Posted by DHallblows

That goddamn Kenyan, Muslim...

Exactly

[errand]

Originally Posted by broncosteven

You understand that the reason we need the government to intervene and regulate guns is because the public can't control themselves.

The law abiding public doesn't have a problem controlling themselves....psychos and thug criminals on the other hand do....please show me the legislation limiting their ammo and weapons of choice

If gun owners would stop allowing their toys to fall into the hands of mass murderers then we wouldn't need regulation.

They're not toys...they're lethal weapons that need to be treated with respect....but then again you don't own one so you have no sense of how to handle one.....and you do realize that very few if any of these mass murderers legally acquired their weapons right?



Do I believe in a free society you should be able to own a hand gun or hunting rifle, sadly yes. Do I think you need an AR15 and a 30 round clip? No, Do I think any of the regulations being asked for are out of line? No, I think they are too weak to stop another attack on the public by another gun owner.

Once again, tell us your plan to keep guns and magazines that hold 30 rounds out of the hands of criminals?

in bold

[errand]

Originally Posted by Inkana7

Dude, my internet source actually uses all of Obama's speech, in which he was talking about the goddamn Peace Corps.

So he never said what he said in the video I posted?

[errand]

Originally Posted by DHallblows

That goddamn Kenyan, Muslim...

Knock knock

who's there?

Kenya...

Kenya who?

Kenya tell me the name of the president who wants his own Sturmabteilung?

[Inkana7]

Originally Posted by errand

So he never said what he said in the video I posted?

Originally Posted by Obama, July 2, Colorado Springs, CO:

As president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose.

People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem – they are the answer. So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We’ll call on Americans to join an energy corps, to conduct renewable energy and environmental clean-up projects in their neighborhoods all across the country.

We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families. And we’re going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set.

We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. We need to use technology to connect people to service. We’ll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where American can browse opportunities to volunteer. You’ll be able to search by category, time commitment and skill sets. You’ll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities.

This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda and make their own change from the bottom up.

.

[broncosteven]

Originally Posted by Inkana7

.

I like this idea, I am already performing service for those in my community by volunteering my free time for thing that will hell all the citizens of my comunity.

[errand]

Obama, July 2, Colorado Springs, CO:
As president I will expand 1- AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose.

People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem – they are the answer. So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We’ll call on Americans to join an 2- energy corps, to conduct renewable energy and environmental clean-up projects in their neighborhoods all across the country.

We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families. And we’re going to grow our 3- Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the 4- Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a 5-civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. We need to use technology to connect people to service. We’ll expand 6-USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where American can browse opportunities to volunteer. You’ll be able to search by category, time commitment and skill sets. You’ll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities.

This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda and make their own change from the bottom up.

So he did say what I posted......a simple yes would have sufficed, but whatever.

you read this and think he's just talking about getting people to join one organization.....

I read this and see that he's advocating people to join six organizations......including his civilian security force.

[Rohirrim]

This thread gets the mega face palm...

[mkporter]

Originally Posted by errand

Obama, July 2, Colorado Springs, CO:
As president I will expand 1- AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose.

People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem – they are the answer. So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We’ll call on Americans to join an 2- energy corps, to conduct renewable energy and environmental clean-up projects in their neighborhoods all across the country.

We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families. And we’re going to grow our 3- Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the 4- Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a 5-civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. We need to use technology to connect people to service. We’ll expand 6-USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where American can browse opportunities to volunteer. You’ll be able to search by category, time commitment and skill sets. You’ll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities.

This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda and make their own change from the bottom up.

So he did say what I posted......a simple yes would have sufficed, but whatever.

you read this and think he's just talking about getting people to join one organization.....

I read this and see that he's advocating people to join six organizations......including his civilian security force.

Didn't you join a federal government organization? Is the only acceptable way to serve your country joining the military?

[mkporter]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

1. All those incidents involved people who already broke the laws on the books. Again, you are talking about people who broke laws to carry out killings and crimes and again, you are now punishing all law abiding citizens for the acts of a few. We live in a country of 300m people and you just pointed out what, 5 incidents where some crazy nuts went ballistic on innocent people? Again, over and over and again, this is the act of insane people that broke multiple laws to perpetrate crimes.

If you are going to restrict gun rights for everyone based on the sick actions of a few sick people, then you better also put laws in the books about the violence Hollywood and the video game industry pump out to the masses. If you want to blame the violent incidents on the availability of guns and NOT on the individual's responsible for these horrific crimes then you have to point the finger at the entertainment and gaming industry for spewing out violent movies and games over the last 40 years that coincide with these incidents.

Yes?? You cannot argue with me on this point. I will only accept a YES from you on this. Otherwise we have nothing to discuss.

A few points:
a) I don't give a **** about what you are willing to accept from me on anything.
b) My comments were in response to your declaration that people were right to be paranoid about their guns because of Obama. You apparently started reading (or at least started highlighting) after I stated this point directly. I noted that Obama has shown absolutely no desire to do anything about gun control, despite many high profile gun related mass killings. I ask again, why should people be paranoid about Obama and their guns?
c) Again, please note, I didn't make the argument that restricting gun rights was the correct answer to the mass killings, only that the political pressure caused by these events makes gun control discussions inevitable and unavoidable. The response would pretty much have been the same with W. still in the white house.

2. There are already restrictions to the 2nd amendment. I can't own a fully automatic gun. I can't own a rocket launcher. I can't own plastic explosives and such. I can't own an armed tank nor an armed jet. I can't own an armed helicopter, etc., etc., etc.

Exactly. So a discussion of where the line should be should not be considered so radical. No one is suggesting we go and take everyone's guns away. Some people are just asking if a Bushmaster AR-15 with a 30 round magazine falls into the category of weapons you listed above.

3. See point 2. Nobody is asking for "unrestricted right to bear 'arms'".

Valid point. I was being a little hyperbolic to demonstrate a point, and I over stated.

4. You simply cannot predict the future. Just because the feds up to this point and time haveing invaded your home and put a gun to your head and forced you to do something you didn't want to do does not mean this won't happen in the future, even in the immediate future. You are banking on the past which limited government much more than today and the foreseeable future. I'll take my chances with an armed law abiding citizen any day of the week over trusting the federal government with my safety.

And here's where you lose me again. If the purpose of owning a weapon is to protect yourself from the federal government, then you're fighting a losing battle. You've already ceded the rights above to own firepower that might help you in anyway against the feds. A fed comes knocking, and you shoot him? You are finished. Plain and simple.

The protections against our government turning tyrannical are not contained in the second amendment. They are contained in the right to vote, the checks and balances in the three branches of government, civilian leadership of the military, the freedom of speech and assembly, and the due process of law. The second amendment was written at a time when we didn't have a strong national military, and external threats required that we had "well-regulated" militias.

I'd also like to point out that you've refused at every turn to discuss the math I presented on the bullet purchase (you know, your original outrage), and at this point, I will only accept a response from you on this. Otherwise we have nothing to discuss.

[Tombstone RJ]

Originally Posted by mkporter

A few points:
a) 1. I don't give a **** about what you are willing to accept from me on anything.
b) My comments were in response to your declaration that people were right to be paranoid about their guns because of Obama. You apparently started reading (or at least started highlighting) after I stated this point directly. I noted that Obama has shown absolutely no desire to do anything about gun control, despite many high profile gun related mass killings. 2. I ask again, why should people be paranoid about Obama and their guns?
c) 3. Again, please note, I didn't make the argument that restricting gun rights was the correct answer to the mass killings, only that the political pressure caused by these events makes gun control discussions inevitable and unavoidable. The response would pretty much have been the same with W. still in the white house.

Exactly. So a discussion of where the line should be should not be considered so radical. No one is suggesting we go and take everyone's guns away. 4. Some people are just asking if a Bushmaster AR-15 with a 30 round magazine falls into the category of weapons you listed above.

Valid point. I was being a little hyperbolic to demonstrate a point, and I over stated.

5.And here's where you lose me again. If the purpose of owning a weapon is to protect yourself from the federal government, then you're fighting a losing battle. You've already ceded the rights above to own firepower that might help you in anyway against the feds. A fed comes knocking, and you shoot him? You are finished. Plain and simple.

6. The protections against our government turning tyrannical are not contained in the second amendment. They are contained in the right to vote, the checks and balances in the three branches of government, civilian leadership of the military, the freedom of speech and assembly, and the due process of law. The second amendment was written at a time when we didn't have a strong national military, and external threats required that we had "well-regulated" militias.

7. I'd also like to point out that you've refused at every turn to discuss the math I presented on the bullet purchase (you know, your original outrage), and at this point, I will only accept a response from you on this. Otherwise we have nothing to discuss.

1. So, you only want more gun legislation without dealing with the violence fed to the masses from the entertainment industry? Again, and again and again, if more gun restrictions are going to be in place with these new laws the Obama is drawing up (Biden is actually doing it) then YOU MUST acknowledge that there are other issues that coincide with these shootings like the violence in movies, tv and video games. If you don't agree with this, we have nothing to discuss. A simple yes or no will suffice.

2. Obama via Biden is in the process of writing legislation for more restrictive gun laws and he's talked about this in several speeches including his state of the union address, right? Correct me if I'm wrong here, Also democrates like that woman from CA (feinstein?) has legislation on the books for gun restrictions.

3. See point one. I know what you are saying, now try to understand what I am saying.

4. The legislation that is being written affects much more than this one gun, it's much more pervasive. If it passes it will make millions of people criminals because they already own these weapons. How are the feds going to enforce this? Are they going to go to everyone's house who owns these type of guns and ask for them? Are they going to grandfather in the weapons already out there and just enforce new gun sales? How are they going to regulate all this stuff. IMHO, it's just an excuse for more spending by the feds as they will now have to substantially increase their numbers to enforce this crap. In other words, it's just more taxes and more waste by the feds.

5. How can I lose you on this simple point--the feds are changing the rules!!! You want to say "well this has never happened in the past, that is, I'm not afraid of the feds abusing their power because it (as far as I know) has never happened to anyone, I'm more afraid of my neighbor the Big Brother!" The feds are expanding, see the DHS as EXAMPLE A. All I'm saying is that this is another stepping stone into the a statist type of government where personal freedoms are abandoned.

6. There are many checks and balances against the federal governement, one of which is the right to bear arms. The others are as you mentioned like the first amendment. One of the most important checks and balances against tyranny is the right of the states. However, that has been eroded too over the years and now the feds overrule the states on everything. Point being theres been a steady erosion of the rights of the people and the states for many years. Obama is now using executive orders in ways that were never used by any previous president. Yes, executive orders have been used in the past but not for the reasons the president is using them. Obama is setting new precedent in the ways he is using executive orders and I and many others see this as yet another erosing of democracy.

7. You didn't acknowledge my point where I said if you are going to force more gun restrictions on law-abiding citizens you also have to force restricitions on the entertainment industry that promotes gun violence. Tell me yes or no on that!

As for the numbers you discussed, I'm still not buying it. When you read the article the feds state that these 1.6 billion rounds are needed for training. Tell me why then they are buying hollow point ammo? When you go to the gun range you shoot FMJ ammo, not hollow point ammo. Hollow point ammo is much more expensive because it is designed to break apart upon impact doing much more damage to flesh. So, in fact, the feds are buying a lot of ammo for killing people, not for training.

I've answered your question, now answer mine.

[Inkana7]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

6. There are many checks and balances against the federal governement, one of which is the right to bear arms. The others are as you mentioned like the first amendment. One of the most important checks and balances against tyranny is the right of the states. However, that has been eroded too over the years and now the feds overrule the states on everything. Point being theres been a steady erosion of the rights of the people and the states for many years. Obama is now using executive orders in ways that were never used by any previous president. Yes, executive orders have been used in the past but not for the reasons the president is using them. Obama is setting new precedent in the ways he is using executive orders and I and many others see this as yet another erosing of democracy.

1) The federal government has always overruled the states, ever hear of the Supremacy Clause?

2) Please, tell me how Barack Obama is using executive orders in ways that differ in how they've been used in the past. (HINT: he isn't.)

[Tombstone RJ]

Originally Posted by Inkana7

1) The federal government has always overruled the states, ever hear of the Supremacy Clause?

2) Please, tell me how Barack Obama is using executive orders in ways that differ in how they've been used in the past. (HINT: he isn't.)

http://bradenton.patch.com/articles/...-going-too-far

[Inkana7]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

http://bradenton.patch.com/articles/...-going-too-far

Do you people even read the links you post? This is just a dude soliciting opinions from his readership on the issue.

[broncosteven]

Originally Posted by mkporter

A few points:
a) I don't give a **** about what you are willing to accept from me on anything.
b) My comments were in response to your declaration that people were right to be paranoid about their guns because of Obama. You apparently started reading (or at least started highlighting) after I stated this point directly. I noted that Obama has shown absolutely no desire to do anything about gun control, despite many high profile gun related mass killings. I ask again, why should people be paranoid about Obama and their guns?
c) Again, please note, I didn't make the argument that restricting gun rights was the correct answer to the mass killings, only that the political pressure caused by these events makes gun control discussions inevitable and unavoidable. The response would pretty much have been the same with W. still in the white house.



Exactly. So a discussion of where the line should be should not be considered so radical. No one is suggesting we go and take everyone's guns away. Some people are just asking if a Bushmaster AR-15 with a 30 round magazine falls into the category of weapons you listed above.



Valid point. I was being a little hyperbolic to demonstrate a point, and I over stated.



And here's where you lose me again. If the purpose of owning a weapon is to protect yourself from the federal government, then you're fighting a losing battle. You've already ceded the rights above to own firepower that might help you in anyway against the feds. A fed comes knocking, and you shoot him? You are finished. Plain and simple.

The protections against our government turning tyrannical are not contained in the second amendment. They are contained in the right to vote, the checks and balances in the three branches of government, civilian leadership of the military, the freedom of speech and assembly, and the due process of law. The second amendment was written at a time when we didn't have a strong national military, and external threats required that we had "well-regulated" militias.

I'd also like to point out that you've refused at every turn to discuss the math I presented on the bullet purchase (you know, your original outrage), and at this point, I will only accept a response from you on this. Otherwise we have nothing to discuss.

I think you and I are on the same page. I AM Trying to do Public Service locally by joining boards of an old historic school houe from 1872 on through 1960. and by joining the board as President of the Friends of the Library.

We promote culture and history without manging to shoot things or blow them up real good. It is an honor learning what the older docents did during their younger days. and how these historic houses were spared and kept for my child to come across them and get interested in helping out.

Very fun, We just had a great open house last Sunday while I am guessing gun owners were oiling up their guns.

[Tombstone RJ]

Originally Posted by Inkana7

Do you people even read the links you post? This is just a dude soliciting opinions from his readership on the issue.

lol, he's stating facts, but whatever.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by mkporter

And here's where you lose me again. If the purpose of owning a weapon is to protect yourself from the federal government, then you're fighting a losing battle. You've already ceded the rights above to own firepower that might help you in anyway against the feds. A fed comes knocking, and you shoot him? You are finished. Plain and simple.

One, using this logic, honey bees are defenseless. The threat of the sting is just as important as the ability. Needless to say there are plenty of corrupt federal and local officials willing to exchange your life for something of value to them. It's only natural to expect that they'd be much more hesitant to risk their own in the process. Myopic faith in government at the height of the age of skepticism is one of the greatest ironies we have on display today.

The protections against our government turning tyrannical are not contained in the second amendment. They are contained in the right to vote, the checks and balances in the three branches of government, civilian leadership of the military, the freedom of speech and assembly, and the due process of law. The second amendment was written at a time when we didn't have a strong national military, and external threats required that we had "well-regulated" militias..

Dead wrong. I've put out the challenge, after quoting numerous founders myself... show me who said that the 2nd amendment was only about defense from foreign invaders. Virtually every founder is on record stating that an armed citizenry was a last check against a runaway government.

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.

-Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 28