Grab your barfbag - this is disgusting
- Thread starter Amish Gangsta
- Start date
Rich Lucibella
Staff
"Luci's Handbook of ProCriminal Tactics" (originally posted on the Rosie Website)
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Tactic #1: Start out strong in your statements against firearms ownership. Argue that the Constitution never intended to provide for private ownership of firearms. When confronted with history to the contrary, argue that "times have changed".
Tactic #2: Provide commonly mouthed statistics without source or reference to defend your point. When confronted with documentable statistics to the contrary, deny your former position. Claim you never held the beliefs that American citizens should be disarmed, but that you only wish there would be "reasonable" restrictions on "dangerous" firearms.
Tactic #3: Use references to "automatic weapons", "cop killer bullets" and "assault rifles" to strike fear into the hearts of the onlookers. When confronted with the fact that automatic weapons, cop killer bullets and assault rifles have been banned for years, go for the moral argument.
Tactic #4: Attempt to gain the high moral ground with cries of "for the children". Assume that onlookers are rather dull; that, because you invoke "the children" your measures will be equated with protecting children.
Tactic #5: Attempt to identify the other side with the forces killing our children today. In short, use "the children" in any way necessary to accomplish your goals; including drawing energy away from the real battle to protect them.
Tactic #6: Always ask for facts, statistics and sources. Never respond to reciprocal requests. Nitpick the points of your opponents' posts in order to move the discussion into areas less uncomfortable for you.
Tactic #7: When, at last, you see yourselves in the minority, loosing ground because you have underestimated your fellow Americans' ability to see thru the spin, attack your opponents' individual credibility.
Tactic #8: Finally, if all else fails, fabricate the "facts" that will help your case. If necessary, attempt to put words into the mouths of you opponents to make it appear that they agree with your position.
Tactic #9: When all is lost, quietly disappear from the thread or the Board.[/quote]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Tactic #1: Start out strong in your statements against firearms ownership. Argue that the Constitution never intended to provide for private ownership of firearms. When confronted with history to the contrary, argue that "times have changed".
Tactic #2: Provide commonly mouthed statistics without source or reference to defend your point. When confronted with documentable statistics to the contrary, deny your former position. Claim you never held the beliefs that American citizens should be disarmed, but that you only wish there would be "reasonable" restrictions on "dangerous" firearms.
Tactic #3: Use references to "automatic weapons", "cop killer bullets" and "assault rifles" to strike fear into the hearts of the onlookers. When confronted with the fact that automatic weapons, cop killer bullets and assault rifles have been banned for years, go for the moral argument.
Tactic #4: Attempt to gain the high moral ground with cries of "for the children". Assume that onlookers are rather dull; that, because you invoke "the children" your measures will be equated with protecting children.
Tactic #5: Attempt to identify the other side with the forces killing our children today. In short, use "the children" in any way necessary to accomplish your goals; including drawing energy away from the real battle to protect them.
Tactic #6: Always ask for facts, statistics and sources. Never respond to reciprocal requests. Nitpick the points of your opponents' posts in order to move the discussion into areas less uncomfortable for you.
Tactic #7: When, at last, you see yourselves in the minority, loosing ground because you have underestimated your fellow Americans' ability to see thru the spin, attack your opponents' individual credibility.
Tactic #8: Finally, if all else fails, fabricate the "facts" that will help your case. If necessary, attempt to put words into the mouths of you opponents to make it appear that they agree with your position.
Tactic #9: When all is lost, quietly disappear from the thread or the Board.[/quote]
Rich,
Do you have that documented where it can not be deleted?
I sometimes take the really abusive BS (Bad Stuff
) and preserve it in my word processor so it can not "get lost".
If you have this documented, I will submit it to the editors of our local newspapers. If everyone on TFL did that, some papers might print it, perhaps we could gain some colleagues against the brownshirts.
Or we could send it to some of the writers who seem to be on our side. Thomas Sewell comes to mind - there are others.
Whatcha think?
Do you have that documented where it can not be deleted?
I sometimes take the really abusive BS (Bad Stuff
) and preserve it in my word processor so it can not "get lost".If you have this documented, I will submit it to the editors of our local newspapers. If everyone on TFL did that, some papers might print it, perhaps we could gain some colleagues against the brownshirts.
Or we could send it to some of the writers who seem to be on our side. Thomas Sewell comes to mind - there are others.
Whatcha think?
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Dennis-
It's documented...however, it was my creation/accusation and therefore carries no official weight.
Rich
It's documented...however, it was my creation/accusation and therefore carries no official weight.
Rich
Jedi Oomodo
New member
"During colonial days, Americans held a great distrust
of standing armies and, in order to get the Constitution ratified, the
framers had to include a Bill of Rights provision to protect
state militias from federal encroachment. Thus "of the
people" refers to the right of the people to participate in
organized state militias, free from interference by the
federal government. "
(Emphasis is mine)
Am I the only who noticed this historical fraud? The Constitution was ratified first without the 1st Ten Amendments, and then later amended due to protests that if certain basic human rights weren't protected from the government, a later regime would use that lack of protection as an excuse to crush the people under their boot heels. To me, this categorically sums up HCI, Feinstein, Schumer, etc.'s ignorance of and contempt for the FACTS about American history which do not support their hysterical hand-wringing. What I don't understand is that if they are "anti-violence" why do they perpetrate laws and greater gov't control over everyone. Make no mistake- government interference in how you live, conduct legitimate business, raise your own children, how you think is a far more heinous form of violence than anything perpetrated by any murderer, because it is done in secret, behind closed doors. It is disguised as "social progress".
I believe that if this country (or any country with a similar system of Constitutional Gov't) is to continue in freedom, such people as continue in willful ignorance and derision of the law and history must be excluded from public debate. Anyone who wants to participate in our experiment of self-government must know and understand basic American principles and respect the facts, whatever they may be. If instead you scoff at our system and what the Founders fought so hard to win, then GET OUT OR SHUT UP!!!
ADDENDUM (14:27 CDT): If that man said he would leave his wife if she bought a gun, I would suggest there is some other, more significant factors at work here, and that she would be well-advised to reconsider the nature of their relationship. He obviously doesn't value it very much if he would leave rather than talk about it.
------------------
"Is fhe'arr teicheadh math na droch fhuireach"
-Sarabian Oomodo
If it isn't Scottish, it's CRAP!
A firearm isn't a weapon until it is used as such.
[This message has been edited by Jedi Oomodo (edited August 17, 1999).]
of standing armies and, in order to get the Constitution ratified, the
framers had to include a Bill of Rights provision to protect
state militias from federal encroachment. Thus "of the
people" refers to the right of the people to participate in
organized state militias, free from interference by the
federal government. "
(Emphasis is mine)
Am I the only who noticed this historical fraud? The Constitution was ratified first without the 1st Ten Amendments, and then later amended due to protests that if certain basic human rights weren't protected from the government, a later regime would use that lack of protection as an excuse to crush the people under their boot heels. To me, this categorically sums up HCI, Feinstein, Schumer, etc.'s ignorance of and contempt for the FACTS about American history which do not support their hysterical hand-wringing. What I don't understand is that if they are "anti-violence" why do they perpetrate laws and greater gov't control over everyone. Make no mistake- government interference in how you live, conduct legitimate business, raise your own children, how you think is a far more heinous form of violence than anything perpetrated by any murderer, because it is done in secret, behind closed doors. It is disguised as "social progress".
I believe that if this country (or any country with a similar system of Constitutional Gov't) is to continue in freedom, such people as continue in willful ignorance and derision of the law and history must be excluded from public debate. Anyone who wants to participate in our experiment of self-government must know and understand basic American principles and respect the facts, whatever they may be. If instead you scoff at our system and what the Founders fought so hard to win, then GET OUT OR SHUT UP!!!
ADDENDUM (14:27 CDT): If that man said he would leave his wife if she bought a gun, I would suggest there is some other, more significant factors at work here, and that she would be well-advised to reconsider the nature of their relationship. He obviously doesn't value it very much if he would leave rather than talk about it.
------------------
"Is fhe'arr teicheadh math na droch fhuireach"
-Sarabian Oomodo
If it isn't Scottish, it's CRAP!
A firearm isn't a weapon until it is used as such.
[This message has been edited by Jedi Oomodo (edited August 17, 1999).]