Obama's Deception.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 380
From: Nor Cal-- For Now
Car Info: 05 PSM WRX
That's a nice rant, but two things (I'll do 'em in list form, since you seem to like that):
1. When did Obama's actions show support of a "total ban" of "usable" firearms for self defense? (And wtf is a "usable firearm"? Wouldn't an unusable firearm be a broken gun?)
2. What does Karl Marx have to do with gun control? Don't throw out names just to try sound smart, it never works.
1. When did Obama's actions show support of a "total ban" of "usable" firearms for self defense? (And wtf is a "usable firearm"? Wouldn't an unusable firearm be a broken gun?)
2. What does Karl Marx have to do with gun control? Don't throw out names just to try sound smart, it never works.
Ie. the gun must be unable to fire while in storage..
Similar to the DC ban...
He voted against decriminalizing use of firearms for self defense in the home..
Keep in mind an illegal weapon in Chicago is alot different from an illegal weapon in Texas or most other American states.
An illegal weapon in Chicago is any handgun not held by a Police officer, judge etc..
And any longgun not registered to you.. It's very difficult to get a foid in Chicago.. So basically you have a choice.
be unarmed, own an "illegal weapon" in the Former murder capital of the US..
In other words if you live in Chicago you are disarmed by the state..
Similar to if you live in China or North Korea, You can own a gun in Russia now, though it's pretty strictly regulated right now.
Basically B.O. has one vote that is a pro-gun / self defense vote in his history as a State Rep.. (that was to allow police to carry off duty, Though he was pushing for support of the local FOP at the time.)
Karl Marx is considered the father of modern Communism ie. Marxism Leninism..
He is far left.. and also authoritarian. The inspiration for Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Mao, and Che IIRC.. Perhaps you've heard of one of the others.
Last edited by Tizzo27; Mar 16, 2009 at 09:15 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,808
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2015 WRX
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,808
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2015 WRX
Usable = Assembled..
Ie. the gun must be unable to fire while in storage..
Similar to the DC ban...
He voted against decriminalizing use of firearms for self defense in the home..
Keep in mind an illegal weapon in Chicago is alot different from an illegal weapon in Texas or most other American states.
An illegal weapon in Chicago is any handgun not held by a Police officer, judge etc..
And any longgun not registered to you.. It's very difficult to get a foid in Chicago.. So basically you have a choice.
be unarmed, own an "illegal weapon" in the Former murder capital of the US..
In other words if you live in Chicago you are disarmed by the state..
Similar to if you live in China or North Korea, You can own a gun in Russia now, though it's pretty strictly regulated right now.
Basically B.O. has one vote that is a pro-gun / self defense vote in his history as a State Rep.. (that was to allow police to carry off duty, Though he was pushing for support of the local FOP at the time.)
Ie. the gun must be unable to fire while in storage..
Similar to the DC ban...
He voted against decriminalizing use of firearms for self defense in the home..
Keep in mind an illegal weapon in Chicago is alot different from an illegal weapon in Texas or most other American states.
An illegal weapon in Chicago is any handgun not held by a Police officer, judge etc..
And any longgun not registered to you.. It's very difficult to get a foid in Chicago.. So basically you have a choice.
be unarmed, own an "illegal weapon" in the Former murder capital of the US..
In other words if you live in Chicago you are disarmed by the state..
Similar to if you live in China or North Korea, You can own a gun in Russia now, though it's pretty strictly regulated right now.
Basically B.O. has one vote that is a pro-gun / self defense vote in his history as a State Rep.. (that was to allow police to carry off duty, Though he was pushing for support of the local FOP at the time.)
A representative gives the people what they want. If the people of Chicago had a problem with it, then you would think they wouldn't have kept voting for the same ballot measures and the same representatives.
My point stands: he has given no more reason for worry than any previous Democrat president. The sky is not falling.
Marx was not authoritarian by choice, he was an incidental authoritarian by virtue of the fact that communist theory concentrated too much on economics and not enough on politics. Remember, Marx formed his theories partly because he was tired of the authoritarian monarchies and autocracies that ruled in the time period in which he lived.
One of the biggest lies ever told in the 20th century is that the Russian revolution of 1917 would make the proletariat equal with the bourgeois. Stalin and Lenin were deceivers and used the plight of the workers to gain power. The same was done in China.
Last edited by saqwarrior; Mar 16, 2009 at 10:10 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 380
From: Nor Cal-- For Now
Car Info: 05 PSM WRX
First off, none of that is support for a "total ban of usable firearms for self defense." He specifically voted no on a law that would circumvent existing law, which was the right choice. If you want people to be able to use illegal guns in self defense, then make those guns legal--which is what should have been done.
Not voting to allow someone the right to defend themselves when it is illegal is defacto voting to not allow someone the right to defend themselves. Basically what is said here is.. "Your life doesn't belong to you, it belongs to the state. We will protect it if and how we see fit, you have no right to protect yourself
Either way the result is the same..
Citizens disarmed and at the mercy of criminals (and the state for that matter)
A representative gives the people what they want. If the people of Chicago had a problem with it, then you would think they wouldn't have kept voting for the same ballot measures and the same representatives.
Marxism/communism is not what was practiced in any of the countries led by the people you mentioned. The former USSR and China are both state-capitalism economies.
Marx was not authoritarian by choice, he was an incidental authoritarian by virtue of the fact that communist theory concentrated too much on economics and not enough on politics. Remember, Marx formed his theories partly because he was tired of the authoritarian monarchies and autocracies that ruled in the time period in which he lived.
Marx was not authoritarian by choice, he was an incidental authoritarian by virtue of the fact that communist theory concentrated too much on economics and not enough on politics. Remember, Marx formed his theories partly because he was tired of the authoritarian monarchies and autocracies that ruled in the time period in which he lived.
True communism never existed in any country
Communism is impossible (people cannot be not self concerned, you usually end up with an oligarch/State dictatorship, where a small minority gets wealthy and a large majority stays dirt poor..
I'm sure I'm not using the correct term here... but I think you probably understand what I'm getting at..
One of the biggest lies ever told in the 20th century is that the Russian revolution of 1917 would make the proletariat equal with the bourgeois. Stalin and Lenin were deceivers and used the plight of the workers to gain power. The same was done in China.
Same can be said for Cuba and North Korea.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,808
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2015 WRX
How is voting against decriminalizing use of Firearms for self defense or lifting the ban (ie. There was a ban. (Similar to the Total Ban in D.C. That he supported), not support of said ban??
Not voting to allow someone the right to defend themselves when it is illegal is defacto voting to not allow someone the right to defend themselves. Basically what is said here is.. "Your life doesn't belong to you, it belongs to the state. We will protect it if and how we see fit, you have no right to protect yourself
Either way the result is the same..
Citizens disarmed and at the mercy of criminals (and the state for that matter)
Not voting to allow someone the right to defend themselves when it is illegal is defacto voting to not allow someone the right to defend themselves. Basically what is said here is.. "Your life doesn't belong to you, it belongs to the state. We will protect it if and how we see fit, you have no right to protect yourself
Either way the result is the same..
Citizens disarmed and at the mercy of criminals (and the state for that matter)
You said he supported a "total ban of usable firearms for self defense." What he actually did was vote against making exceptions for illegal firearms when used in defense of home invasions. I believe that was the right choice, because properly written law should not have exceptions like that. If you want people to be able to use those weapons in self defense, then make them completely legal (which I am in favor of--military weaponry aside, I think access to weapons should be unrestricted).
That's why I said the "former USSR."
China is an odd group. They are torn between what is good for the State, and good for China. read an interesting article about how in Chinese the Word for the state and the word for the nation is the same word, but younger people have started using two worlds to describe it (thus separating the two)
True. I'm glad we're on the same page on most of this stuff.
Communism is impossible (people cannot be not self concerned, you usually end up with an oligarch/State dictatorship, where a small minority gets wealthy and a large majority stays dirt poor..
I'm sure I'm not using the correct term here... but I think you probably understand what I'm getting at..
I'm sure I'm not using the correct term here... but I think you probably understand what I'm getting at..
And just so you know, I am vehemently against state collectivism/communism.
Look, we seem to agree for the most part... I just don't think Obama is the tyrannical bogeyman people are making him out to be. Maybe I'm crazy, but I think there are things that are much more likely to happen--and happening right now--that we should be worried about.
The whole "taking out guns away" line is a scare tactic used by the Republicans, just like "taking away a woman's right to choose" is a scare tactic used by the Democrats. The truth is that neither party would do what they are accused of because they know that the populace wouldn't stand for it.
When they shift toward totalitarianism, they'll do it under the guise of protecting us. That's the only way they'll get away with it.
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
BTW. I got to shoot a very lovely weapon this weekend; Armalite's AR 30 in .338 Lapua.
Pushes a 200gr TAP bullet to just about 3500fps.
At 300m, a full plastic milk carton disappears.
Pushes a 200gr TAP bullet to just about 3500fps.
At 300m, a full plastic milk carton disappears.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,808
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2015 WRX
plays well with others
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 9,923
From: Sac
Car Info: your mother crazy
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,808
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2015 WRX
still watching it... interesting...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...=en&so=1&dur=3
It's 2 hours long and further explains the NWO.
Where is Brucelee? I need to figure out how to obtain some self defense...
It's 2 hours long and further explains the NWO.
Where is Brucelee? I need to figure out how to obtain some self defense...
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 380
From: Nor Cal-- For Now
Car Info: 05 PSM WRX
I think we have a disconnect--let my try to be more clear:
You said he supported a "total ban of usable firearms for self defense." What he actually did was vote against making exceptions for illegal firearms when used in defense of home invasions. I believe that was the right choice, because properly written law should not have exceptions like that. If you want people to be able to use those weapons in self defense, then make them completely legal (which I am in favor of--military weaponry aside, I think access to weapons should be unrestricted).
You said he supported a "total ban of usable firearms for self defense." What he actually did was vote against making exceptions for illegal firearms when used in defense of home invasions. I believe that was the right choice, because properly written law should not have exceptions like that. If you want people to be able to use those weapons in self defense, then make them completely legal (which I am in favor of--military weaponry aside, I think access to weapons should be unrestricted).
Sure a properly written law perhaps.. But what was happening was that good people where being charged with a crime after defending themselves.
The law was meant as a stop gap, until something could be done with the law itself (basically impossible in Chicago..)
Then the people of Chicago need to rise up and do something about it.
But what was it Jefferson said about an educated well informed electorate?
Chicago from what I understand has a large portion of uneducated, Welfare dependent folks..
Those that would Rise up usually have jobs and move if they can..
That's why I said the "former USSR."
There's also a shift towards moving capitalism away from the state and towards a class of elites.
There's also a shift towards moving capitalism away from the state and towards a class of elites.
What you're describing isn't communism, though. I understand the shift towards an oligarchy or a plutocracy, but in a properly formed communist nation such things wouldn't happen because all wealth would be shared--forcefully.
And just so you know, I am vehemently against state collectivism/communism.
And just so you know, I am vehemently against state collectivism/communism.
Look, we seem to agree for the most part... I just don't think Obama is the tyrannical bogeyman people are making him out to be. Maybe I'm crazy, but I think there are things that are much more likely to happen--and happening right now--that we should be worried about.
I just look at his views before he became a US senator and look at the organization he left.
Chicago is known to be corrupt.. And is also a gun control Mecca.. Their crime is horrendous, and many of their public servants have been brought up on charges for one thing or another..
I find it hard to believe that one can leave a place so filled with graft corruption and crime and somehow have none of it rub off on him..
He supported the DC in Heller V D.C. (Basically saying that you have no right to bear arms)
He supported the ban in his City before he became a U.S. Senator.
He is for "spreading the wealth"
Ie Taxing the rich and giving to the poor.
Just replace Rich with bourgeoisie.. And Poor with Proletariat..
And you don't wonder why those who own businesses and work good jobs aren't at least a bit suspicious of Barry O?
The whole "taking out guns away" line is a scare tactic used by the Republicans, just like "taking away a woman's right to choose" is a scare tactic used by the Democrats. The truth is that neither party would do what they are accused of because they know that the populace wouldn't stand for it.
when this bill passed in 1994 Diane Feinstein said on 60 minutes. "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it."
She couldn't but she would if she could.. Any Senator Congressman etc that would vote to have Mr. and Mrs. America turn them in, needs to be
1. Voted the hell out of office.
2. Sent back to School to learn about the Constitution..
3.. Deported, preferably to someplace where the citizens are disarmed totally, and are at the mercy of the state.. (somewhere in Africa.)
When they shift toward totalitarianism, they'll do it under the guise of protecting us. That's the only way they'll get away with it.
Great Depression-- New Deal
WW II
Vietnam
9-11
Great Depression II--New Deal II?
We've lost liberties/ freedom in all of the following..
And "They" are getting away with it..
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,808
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2015 WRX
Sure a properly written law perhaps.. But what was happening was that good people where being charged with a crime after defending themselves.
The law was meant as a stop gap, until something could be done with the law itself (basically impossible in Chicago..)
In a perfect world perhaps..
But what was it Jefferson said about an educated well informed electorate?
Chicago from what I understand has a large portion of uneducated, Welfare dependent folks..
Those that would Rise up usually have jobs and move if they can..
The law was meant as a stop gap, until something could be done with the law itself (basically impossible in Chicago..)
In a perfect world perhaps..
But what was it Jefferson said about an educated well informed electorate?
Chicago from what I understand has a large portion of uneducated, Welfare dependent folks..
Those that would Rise up usually have jobs and move if they can..
C'est la vie.
Problem with this is that no one shares equally, and though you can guarantee equal opportunity(though I might be inclined to be skeptical that you can even do that) you cannot guarantee and equal outcome. I see that you understand this.. Communism is awesome on paper, as a fantasy Science Fiction (Star Trek for example)
Boogy man maybe not..
I just look at his views before he became a US senator and look at the organization he left.
Chicago is known to be corrupt.. And is also a gun control Mecca.. Their crime is horrendous, and many of their public servants have been brought up on charges for one thing or another..
I find it hard to believe that one can leave a place so filled with graft corruption and crime and somehow have none of it rub off on him..
He supported the DC in Heller V D.C. (Basically saying that you have no right to bear arms)
He supported the ban in his City before he became a U.S. Senator.
He is for "spreading the wealth"
Ie Taxing the rich and giving to the poor.
Just replace Rich with bourgeoisie.. And Poor with Proletariat..
And you don't wonder why those who own businesses and work good jobs aren't at least a bit suspicious of Barry O?
I just look at his views before he became a US senator and look at the organization he left.
Chicago is known to be corrupt.. And is also a gun control Mecca.. Their crime is horrendous, and many of their public servants have been brought up on charges for one thing or another..
I find it hard to believe that one can leave a place so filled with graft corruption and crime and somehow have none of it rub off on him..
He supported the DC in Heller V D.C. (Basically saying that you have no right to bear arms)
He supported the ban in his City before he became a U.S. Senator.
He is for "spreading the wealth"
Ie Taxing the rich and giving to the poor.
Just replace Rich with bourgeoisie.. And Poor with Proletariat..
And you don't wonder why those who own businesses and work good jobs aren't at least a bit suspicious of Barry O?
Gun control is a very real threat.. (not just a scare tactic of the right) the 1994 "assualt weapons ban" is a prime example..
when this bill passed in 1994 Diane Feinstein said on 60 minutes. "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it."
She couldn't but she would if she could.. Any Senator Congressman etc that would vote to have Mr. and Mrs. America turn them in, needs to be
1. Voted the hell out of office.
2. Sent back to School to learn about the Constitution..
3.. Deported, preferably to someplace where the citizens are disarmed totally, and are at the mercy of the state.. (somewhere in Africa.)
when this bill passed in 1994 Diane Feinstein said on 60 minutes. "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it."
She couldn't but she would if she could.. Any Senator Congressman etc that would vote to have Mr. and Mrs. America turn them in, needs to be
1. Voted the hell out of office.
2. Sent back to School to learn about the Constitution..
3.. Deported, preferably to someplace where the citizens are disarmed totally, and are at the mercy of the state.. (somewhere in Africa.)