Glockamolie
New member
It looks like Houston is on that little map. You couldn't be more wrong. Dallas, now I'll buy that one, and definitely count Austin in, but not Houston.
Cop doesn't like guns in hands of citizens
- Thread starter brockgl
- Start date
- Status
Northern Sod Breaker
New member
The same people that took to the streets when income tax was made law right? Or the same people that stormed the streets when the 94AWB became law right? People are cowards, all talk. I see it every day. Everybody is too afraid of being the odd man out. Too afraid of Uncle Sam. People who think that the Founding fathers were just loved by the British when they rebelled. They should be stripped of their citisenship.(IMO) Anyone who is too afriad to use the most basic of right quarenteed by the BOR does not belong here. They are too afraid to do something as simple as voicing their thoughts on an political issue. There are realy only two groups of people. Those who think they cann't it anyway so why try, And those that are too afraid they might loose something by speaking out. I'm not talking about bearing arms agianst the govt. here. I'm talking about educating yourself and speaking out on the issues, I'm talking about spending the $5(or less) to drive to the polls and vote. These people will never change and the govt. knows it. This is why they keep passing these laws. Becuse they know no one will challange them.
Were just plain screwed
Shotgun (Fearfull of the future) Minister,
Ausserordeutlich
Moderator
It's a lot easier to be brave when all you're doing is tapping on a keyboard...not exactly the same as facing trained armed forces. Too much of this Chicken Little talk! Nobody's going to confiscate our weapons. And 1 billion Chinese don't want all Americans dead; they do want to do muy business with Americans.
Where to begin... 1. Have you interviewed every gun owner in America to determine they're all cowards or do you just make that assumption based on a crystal ball or something?
2. "Nobody's going to confiscate our weapons." Do you study politics? I doubt it very seriously after that statement. Don't believe me?
That's a U.S. Senator talking, not some idiot town councilman.
3. I don't know where this came from but I'll answer it. "China doesn't want all Americans dead...?" So you're saying they want some of us dead?
What do you suppose China is doing with all the revenue they make from the major trade and trade decifit they currently enjoy?What's your point? Wanna add up land mass next?I don't give a rat's rear end who wants them banned. They'll have to trash the Constitution to do it and I'll bet there's enough people who wouldn't stand for it.
Ok - I'll connect all the dots for you.
You said:
"I believe that the vast majority of LEOs would refuse an illegal order anyway..."
Then Wildcard brought up NOLA, suggesting that you just might be wrong in that assumption.
In response to Wildcard's point, you qualified your original statement with:
"In a liberal city all bets are off. Sorry, should have mentioned that."
I then posted the map to show that the "liberal cities" (yes, there are a few exceptions) are spread out all over this nation, and with some exceptions, NOLA's firearm confiscation disaster could happen in anyone of them given the right circumstances. Since these cities are scattered all over the country, and a huge percentage of the US population resides in these cities, the "all bets are off" involves a significant portion of the country - not just NOLA.
So what you're sayin is that these city police officers will venture outside their jurisdiction to confiscate weapons? I don't buy it.
If anything NOLA reinforced gunowners rights because it made them all aware of a disturbing situation that COULD and did happen. How many laws were passed that forbid this practice after it happened in NO, (like we needed them to start with.) I believe that because it actually happened that there's far less chance of it happening in the future.
oldbillthundercheif
Moderator
Get that triangle off of 'Narlins as well. The geeks that were doing the confiscating during the late unpleasantness were mostly out-of-state coppers that came down to "help".
Nagin may be a weirdo but he does not represent the coon-asses, bastard frenchmen, and other residing pro-gun folks down here.
Even liberal democrats haul iron in Looose-ea-ana.
Nagin may be a weirdo but he does not represent the coon-asses, bastard frenchmen, and other residing pro-gun folks down here.
Even liberal democrats haul iron in Looose-ea-ana.
...Income tax was only supposed to be for the rich. Yea people kinda dropped the ball on that one.
As for the AWB, alot of Dems got the pink slip in the midterms for the stuff they pulled and they are still trying to recover from that. The message got sent across to them there. Not to say that some are still trying to make it an issue, but by and large the congress critters stay away from that issue more than they did before. We fist try to solve things with the ballot box.
No, I'm sayin' what I said:
I don't know what the problem is here - maybe it's everyone's need to argue for the sake of arguing - but if you pay attention to my last few posts, what I did was agree with your comment and point out that "all bets are off" (your term) applies to more of the nation than some might think <--- that's the jist of my point.
I didn't make the map so stop asking me to "take the triangle off" of your cities. I did say there are exceptions. And oldbillthundercheif, that triangle is deservedly plastered on NOLA. It matters not that out-of-staters came to do the job. What matters is the leadership ordered the confiscation, and authority figures (of some type from some where) came to do it.
Wrong - he's representing everyone. He's the elected official. Doesn't matter if he didn't get the vote of coon-asses, bastard frenchmen, and other residing pro-gun folks.
If all you're sayin' is he doesn't represent the opinion of coon-asses, bastard frenchmen, and other pro-gun folks --- well then I'll agree with you all day on that point. But, what does that all matter anyway? The confiscation still took place.
The Dems have recovered from that. The nation has forgiven them for 1994, as evidenced by 2006. It's forgotten by us, but not by them.
But we have also apparently forgotten that 2006 was the first time they didn't run on an anti-gun platform. They didn't mention it, and hoped that the nation would ignore the fact that the Dems have been pushing for gun control since 1994 as evidenced by the bills they've continuously introduced, and the AWB renewal in 2004 being so important that Kerry broke away from the campaign trail to cast his one vote of that session in favor of the renewal.
Saying that they've learned their lesson ignores two key points: they haven't been tested at all with this Congress and everything up until this campaign says that they want firearms heavily regulated or outright banned.
As for cops carrying out confiscation, etc., we need to remember that cops carry out what the law requires and issues about constitutionality are settled in court. That's part of their job description of being law enforcers, not judges. And why do we expect cops to refuse these orders on the basis of their personal beliefs when we don't expect them to refuse to obey orders in every other circumstance? How many cops, upon finding a concealed weapon carried by a person without a permit, say "oh, the permit requirement is unconstitutional. Here's your weapon and go about your business. Sorry for the trouble."? Gun confiscations are carried out every day in every city. The only difference is whether it takes place nationally or not, and that's more an issue of when, not if.
Re: the Dems- Check out this quote from Nancy Pelosi. The Kibs have kearned nothing.
Published: October 22, 2006
>
>
> Nancy Pelosi condemned the new record highs of the stock market
>as "just another example of Bush policies helping the rich get richer.
>First Bush cut taxes for the rich and the economy has rebounded with new
>record low unemployment rates, which only means wealthy employers are
>getting even wealthier at the expense of the underpaid working class."
>
> She went on to say, "Despite the billions of dollars being
>spent in Iraq, our economy is still strong and government tax revenues are
>at all time highs. What this really means is that business is exploiting
>the war effort and working Americans just to put money in their own
>pockets."
>
> When questioned about recent stock market highs she responded,
>"Only the rich benefit from these record highs. Working Americans, welfare
>recipients, the unemployed and minorities are not sharing in these obscene
>record highs. There is no question these windfall profits and income
>created by the Bush administration need to be taxed at 100% rate and those
>dollars redistributed to the poor and working class. Profits from the
>stock market do not reward the hard work of our working class who, by their
>hard work, are responsible for generating these corporate profits that
>create stock market profits for the rich. We in congress will need to
>address this issue to either tax these profits or to control the stock
>market to prevent this unearned income to flow to the rich."
>
> When asked about the fact that over 80% of all Americans have
>investments in mutual funds, retirement funds, 401K's and the stock market
>she replied, "That may be true, but probably only 5% account for 90% of all
>these investment dollars. That's just more 'trickle down' economics
>claiming that, if a corporation is successful, that everyone from the CEO
>to the floor sweeper benefit from higher wages and job security which is
>ridiculous. How much of this 'trickle down' ever get to the unemployed and
>minorities in our county? None, and that's the tragedy of these stock
>market highs."
>
> "We democrats are going to address this issue after the
>election when we take control of the congress. We will return to the 60% to
>80% tax rates on the rich and we will be able to take at least 30% of all
>current lower Federal Income Tax taxpayers off the roles and increase
>government income substantially. We need to work toward the goal of
>equalizing income in our country and at the same time limiting the amount
>the rich can invest."
>
> When asked how these new tax dollars would be spent she
>replied, "We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed
>and minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal
>immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of
>unemployed minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long
>ways to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to
>have as 'Americans'."
>
Yup, send your money to D.C so they can spend it paying illegal aliens to breed more litters of anchor babies who will vote Democrat
Published: October 22, 2006
>
>
> Nancy Pelosi condemned the new record highs of the stock market
>as "just another example of Bush policies helping the rich get richer.
>First Bush cut taxes for the rich and the economy has rebounded with new
>record low unemployment rates, which only means wealthy employers are
>getting even wealthier at the expense of the underpaid working class."
>
> She went on to say, "Despite the billions of dollars being
>spent in Iraq, our economy is still strong and government tax revenues are
>at all time highs. What this really means is that business is exploiting
>the war effort and working Americans just to put money in their own
>pockets."
>
> When questioned about recent stock market highs she responded,
>"Only the rich benefit from these record highs. Working Americans, welfare
>recipients, the unemployed and minorities are not sharing in these obscene
>record highs. There is no question these windfall profits and income
>created by the Bush administration need to be taxed at 100% rate and those
>dollars redistributed to the poor and working class. Profits from the
>stock market do not reward the hard work of our working class who, by their
>hard work, are responsible for generating these corporate profits that
>create stock market profits for the rich. We in congress will need to
>address this issue to either tax these profits or to control the stock
>market to prevent this unearned income to flow to the rich."
>
> When asked about the fact that over 80% of all Americans have
>investments in mutual funds, retirement funds, 401K's and the stock market
>she replied, "That may be true, but probably only 5% account for 90% of all
>these investment dollars. That's just more 'trickle down' economics
>claiming that, if a corporation is successful, that everyone from the CEO
>to the floor sweeper benefit from higher wages and job security which is
>ridiculous. How much of this 'trickle down' ever get to the unemployed and
>minorities in our county? None, and that's the tragedy of these stock
>market highs."
>
> "We democrats are going to address this issue after the
>election when we take control of the congress. We will return to the 60% to
>80% tax rates on the rich and we will be able to take at least 30% of all
>current lower Federal Income Tax taxpayers off the roles and increase
>government income substantially. We need to work toward the goal of
>equalizing income in our country and at the same time limiting the amount
>the rich can invest."
>
> When asked how these new tax dollars would be spent she
>replied, "We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed
>and minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal
>immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of
>unemployed minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long
>ways to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to
>have as 'Americans'."
>
Yup, send your money to D.C so they can spend it paying illegal aliens to breed more litters of anchor babies who will vote Democrat
Last edited:
Glockamolie
New member
"There is no question these windfall profits and income
>created by the Bush administration need to be taxed at 100% rate and those
>dollars redistributed to the poor and working class."
She's a good Communist.
>created by the Bush administration need to be taxed at 100% rate and those
>dollars redistributed to the poor and working class."
She's a good Communist.
old 12 gauge
Moderator
i hate to admit it MX but i'm afraid the people who would stand up and fight it out for our gun rights are very few and far between ....... it would take ALL of US gun owners to stand up and say NO!!!!!! i would hope to think that the law enforcement might lead at such a time but i wouldn't bet a dime on it................................ yep i think our vote is our best weapon...........
If a WACO like Louis Farrakhan can get 250,000 thousand people to march on Washington just to prove he could do it,
why couldn't hunters from each state march on their state capital all on a given day, all it would take is gun clubs in every state to organize and get the word out to members and non members that like to hunt or own guns.
all hunters and gun owners could also flood their senators with emails and snail mails, phone calls. wake up before it's to late..
If a WACO like Louis Farrakhan can get 250,000 thousand people to march on Washington just to prove he could do it,
why couldn't hunters from each state march on their state capital all on a given day, all it would take is gun clubs in every state to organize and get the word out to members and non members that like to hunt or own guns.
all hunters and gun owners could also flood their senators with emails and snail mails, phone calls. wake up before it's to late..
oldbillthundercheif
Moderator
Nagin does not control New Orleans, money controls New Orleans. He's just a puppet figure that puts the cash in his pocket and does what the $$$ tells him to. It's how politics works down here.
Northern Sod Breaker
New member
Glockamolie, you beat me to it. I quess now you all know where my tag line comes from. You know what they say asy. Piss off a liberal. Work hard succeed and be happy.
- Status